Need some opinions

wirlwind · #1 05-17-2004, 10:10 PM

Below is a copy of a letter that I am sending to an attorney about a case that they have been harrassing us about for months now.& I sent them a letter of discovery, which they essentially objected to all the questions except their name and address.& They sent back 3 different letters of discovery asking for every kind of information possible including copies of tax returns for the last 10 years, bank statemnts from the last 10 years every job and name of supervisors and, all the loans or CC we have had in the last 5 years, and almost anything else you can think of.& The letter of discovery that I sent was to be notarized and it wasn't.& I have written back this letter of response.& Please tell me what you think.& All responses will be appreciated.
&
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
Anywhere&, Al. 11111
&<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
&XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,& P.C.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXX, 11111111
&<o

></o

>
March, 17, 2004
&<o

></o

>
Re: Civil Action Case Number-CV XXXXXXXXXXX
&<o

></o

>
Dear XXXXXXXXXXX,
&<o

></o

>
This letter is in response to your letter of discovery dated March 4, 2004.& 
&<o

></o

>
Who are you? We do not know you and have no contract with you.& We do not have the “alleged” contract& that you claim we have with your “alleged” clients Household Finance Corporation of Alabama.& You have produced a “copy” of an alleged contract. As you well know a copy of a contract is not admissible evidence in court.& We have repeatedly asked you for certified verification of this alleged debt for which you continue to harass us.& We sent a letter of discovery that required a notary’s signature.& You returned something similar to this letter which answered virtually nothing.& You also refused to answer these questions under oath.& So far there has been nothing produced proving that there is a contract except a copy of an alleged contract.& 
&<o

></o

>
Also, if you have been retained to represent XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, then there should be a contract between yourself and your alleged& “client”.& We would also like to see that contract to prove your jurisdiction in this case.& I would like to remind you at this time that purchasing evidence of a debt and proceeding with collection activity under the name of the original maker of the alleged note is a felony.
&<o

></o

>
Again, we are not refusing to pay. We are asking for certified verification of this alleged debt, and proof of your jurisdiction in this matter.& Be advised that verification is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition as follows: “Confirmation of correctness, truth or authenticity, by affidavit, oath or deposition.& Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statement of party.”
&<o

></o

>
We shall respond to no further harassing letters until we receive the information we have requested, under oath.& 
&<o

></o

>
Awaiting your reply,
&<o

></o

>
Without Prejudice UCC1-207,
&<o

></o

>
&
XXXXXXX XXXXXXX
&<o

></o

>
Without Prejudice UCC1-207,
&<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
XXXXX XXXXXXX
&<o

></o

>
Copy to:
Consumer Response Center
Federal Trade Commission
Washington, D.C.& 20580
&
Thanks, Donna

#2 05-17-2004, 10:26 PM

[Everyone here is so much nicer than me. I'm still for just sending a simple "Piss off, Jerk!"]

Admit the obvious and true facts:

E.G.: I am in receipt of blah blah (make sure to point out the little things, like signed v unsigned v signed electronically, date received v date of letter--we've received 2 letters now from the IRS the same date that is on the letter!--and so forth)

Put everything in the form of a question:

Is it true you are under contract with "whomever" regarding this matter?
Is it true you I asked to see that contract?
Is it true I have requested verification of alleged debt?

And so forth.

Picture the guy being the witness and you have him on the stand and the ONLY information you can get from him MUST come from simple "yes/no" questions.

Any legal materials you cite should be listed separately. E.G.:

Is it true the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers are *******s? [1]& (You would then list all your references and cites separately, numbered in accordance with your questions.)

Put him on notice that failure to respond is tacit agreement, period, and do not waive timeliness.

Now, I'm only saying this because after lots and lots of letters, this is the "easiest" approach to use to clearly state your case. (Give Ice a big thanks for this one. Makes&a great "format," easy to read, and reaches an absolute conclusion.)

Oh. And make absolutely certain all his answers are YES. I.E., you want the conclusion to be: "If these are all "yes," then how in the world can I possibly be liable for this alleged debt," etc.

Okay. Gotta run.

Randy

wirlwind · #3 05-17-2004, 11:10 PM

Randy,

Thanks.& I have originally sent letters asking all the questions.& They, of course haven't responded.& In this letter I was trying to put them on notice that they haven't responded, and I don't intend to answer any of their questions until they answer mine.& I need to find that law about purchasing evidence.& I have it at home, and will have to look it up, and also the law about a copy not being admissable as evidence in court.& I'll have to look that up also and then change my letter.& Thanks for the input. There were also some major mistakes in the letter they sent.& In one they listed us as defendants and HFC as the plaintiffs and then in the body of the letter mentioned a Ted and some lady's name Prestridge as the plaintiff's they are representing.& Then in another one of the discovery letters they named HFC as palintiff and us as defendants and the in the body of the letter name a Harry Swank as defendants.& Should those things be pointed out?

I guess I am getting pissed off with these jerks. I just want them to leave me alone.&

Donna

#4 05-18-2004, 06:07 AM

actually donna, i would point that out.& ask them who those people are, as you are not they - perhaps they've contacted you by mistake!

retain copies of those letters to use in court as evidence of their incompetence.

jon

Jerseee · #5 05-18-2004, 08:48 AM

I agree with Jon,

It is the honorable way to get the desired results and you are not arguing.

wirlwind · #6 05-18-2004, 05:22 PM

Jon and Jerseee,

Thanks for the input.& Should I just point that out in my next correspondence, or incorporate it into the letter above.& I think I becamse somewhat argumentative in that letter, but I am so tired of these idiots.& Also, I believe that the statute of limitation is up on this account.& I sent the original letter to HFC on 4/2/01 telling them to validate the loan.& This is a revolving type of an account accessed with checks.& In Alabama an open account has a statute of limitations of 3 years.& Does that begin when I sent them the letter telling them the acoount was fraudulent (4/2/01) or when they decide that it begins?& How do you go about pointing out that the statute of limitations is up on this account?

Should I try to answer their letters of discovery?& If I do I will object to everything just as they did..& I don't know hwo the italics popped in there.& This computer has a mind of its own.&

We actually have gotten another letter from these jackasses regarding a Discover account.& I have already sent the first letter to them and they responded back saying they were getting the documentation as proof of that account.& Of course it will be a copy.& In the letter I sent to them on that I said a copy wouldn't be proof.& These idiots do what they want.&

I've got so many things going on right now with lawyers for CC accounts and state taxes.& It isn't much fun right now.& My main concern right now is the account in the above letter right now.& Any opinions or info will be appreciated.&

Thanks,

Donna

#7 05-18-2004, 09:58 PM

Howdy, Donna...

Whew. 12 hours in a big-truck sucks.

Mmm. You say you're just plain ol' pissed off, eh?
Well, might be time to "Francis 'em." (Francis was my mom. Here's how the Francis-method works.)

She would always write nice, polite, professional, and courteous letters in matters such as these, when there were "doubts."

Every time, without exception, she'd get absolutely nowhere.

By the third contact, she'd go into Francis-mode.

That meant getting out the red pen, grabbing the original of whatever the letter and documentation happened to be, and off she'd go, like a teacher grading a test.&

Huge letters, such as THIS IS NOT MY ACCOUNT!& ARE YOU PEOPLE REALLY THIS STUPID???!!!

Stuff like that. I.E., she'd let them know, visually, that she was mad enough to spit nails.

And every single time, without exception, the matter was always resolved to her satisfaction.

Now, why do those stories stick with me so much?

Because MY life's experiences have been exactly the same. I don't care how "nice" I am, how "correct" I am (legally speaking), and on and on, whether in person or on paper, it's as if there's a karmic law that has told every single person on the planet:

"Ignore him until he really, really gets pissed off, okay?"

All I'm saying is this:& I think we're all pretty tired of getting computer-generated letters, meaning emotionless allegations of debt from faceless people who, for the most part, were simply trained to do what they do and have no desire to know the "law" governing any of it.

Why then do we continue to respond the same way? Yes, I know, polite and professional IS important, but why should "they" take us seriously when our responses are as emotionless and lifeless as are their "threats"?& And doesn't every single one of their "contacts" contain a "threat," if implied only? And is it not that "threat" that pisses you off?

Well, maybe you should tell 'em that you're fed up with it all! You've tried to resolve it, it's getting nowhere, and you're damned tired of having to deal with it!

Maybe we're all trying too hard to figure all out. Maybe, just maybe, we should use, as our defense, the one thing for which THEY have NO LAW and NO recourse: Our damned rage!

Howard Beale: "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."

Oh, ever hear the story of Ernest Hemingway (I think it was him)? Long story short:

Publisher kept pressing him for his next manuscript. But ol' Ernest hadn't been paid for his last. So he drew a dollar-sign on a sheet of paper, along with a question mark, and mailed it. Got a response about the person who make out the checks had a broken foot. He responded: "Does he write the checks with his feet?"

Maybe THAT should be our "strategy."

Maybe, for example, when I responded to peckerhead Parizek at the IRS, all I should have written is:

"Wow. Mr. Parizek knows enough about MY personal financial situation to prepare a tax return for me? That's damned amazing considering even I don't have the required certified copies of information returns to make such a return. And I notice that he didn't sign his under penalty of perjury, but he said in his letter that if I agreed with HIS assessment that I was REQUIRED to sign under penalty of perjury. What the hell is that all about? Is Mr. Parizek above the law, or something?"

Okay. I rambled. I'm sorry.

I do,& however, in all seriousness, so no harm in at least the mention of a little "righteous indignation." Remember, the people who are harassing you are also, well, people. And THEY get damned sick and tired of the same things you do. Right?

Randy

wirlwind · #8 05-18-2004, 10:54 PM

Randy,

You are so right.& I am thoroughtly& pissed off.& When they sent those last letters of discovery all I could think is "who in the hell do these jackasses think they are?"&

I'm trying hard to remember to remain in honor, but what I'd really like to do is is see them crawl.& I am going to rewrite the letter, and incliude the fact that some of their papers are screwed up.

Can they get me for not answering their letters of discovery if I do send a letter back within the time frame?& I just don't feel like having to type all that crap out.&

Donna

Ice · #9 05-18-2004, 11:18 PM

Is the alleged debt a&CC or something?

If these are "collectors" then why not write a short sweet letter that states very simply: "So, Sue Me!"

Then, when they get all their crap started in court... Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, lack of evidence on the record and so forth... you know, the Cornforth way...

Tell them to just stop "talking" (er.. writing) and get down to the meat of it.

And you could always bring up the purchase of evidence at that time as well.

&

#10 05-19-2004, 06:31 AM

just as fyi - courts are accepting "copies" of whatever as being proof positive.& which, of course, is crap.& however, that is what my brother the lawyer passed on to me.

if it were me, i'd send the jerks a VoD (CTC3 style)&with CPN for each of the "accounts" they allege.

then, they have&a choice with two options&- seeing that you are serious, they'll either give up as they can't answer that VoD, or they'll go to court.& if the latter, you can use the Cornforth material in conjunction with the lack of response on the VoD.

this way you didn't argue and they painted themselves into a teeny-tiny corner.

that's the route i believe i would go.

just my un-learned opinion.

jon