Summons came today Check it out.

Thanks Jerseee. You sound like my brother. He says the thing about written word not accurately refelcting tone and pitch.



I will read and heed. NO ARGUING.



HB

Originally Posted by Akira

HB,



You edited out the question from the post immediately above?



I'll edit out my answer... lol



Thought I had screwed up bigtime till I had realized what you had done.. lol



Akira

Found out what I needed to know just after. I was reading thru the RCP in NC when I had asked. Sorry.

[rushpat]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

Fire them all? I don't understand. Can you elaborate?



Thanks



HB

That is the old Rice McLeod way (Listen to his mp3 files in the Events and Seminars section of this site).



Using the term "fire them" is another way to saying to them that if they believe they are representing you in any manner here, then they are fired, or put another way... any power of attorney they believe they have over you is hereby revoked.



If you read their letters carefully, many times, they are craftily trying to get you to allow them to represent you, speak for you and do things in your name.



Also, many times, their paperwork can be offers of contract (very slyly written). Not objecting to it can be viewed as tacit acceptance. Even though no signature was taken on your part, not rejecting it by returning to them in 72 hours rejected can be considered a promise to pay or perform on your part.



This is, of course, the Rice Mcleod way. Others agree with it, some don't. Whenever you have something like this though, it is always good to respond within 72 hours. I make it a habit of including a notarized affidavit with my responses indicating that I've responded within 72 hours and sometimes a certificate of service stating what is included in a package of paperwork to be signed by the postal worker (and keep a copy for myself).

Here are the medical docs:



here

[LindseyH]

It appears to me that you need to demand that the case be dismissed on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction has NOT been established. In order for subject matter jurisdiction to be established there must FIRST be an injury, SECONDLY a creditable witness to the injury and THIRD a statement by which relief can be made. The first two have NOT been established. An affidavit MUST be signed and notorized, othewise it cannot be used as evidence and a stamped signature cannot be notorized. Besides, the injury was NOT to the credit collection company anyway. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction does not appear to have been established in that this collection company does not do business in your state so why do they think they've got access to your court. Contest the jurisdiction of the court. Furthermore, due process of law has NOT been fullfilled on their part, as they have NOT responded to your good faith effort to resolve this issue by asking them to verify the debt, so it ought to be thrown out on that alone.

Let's see here, there is a complaint filed in court from someone who has not had an injury verified by someone that doesn't exist (stamped signature - plausable deniability) with a summons served to someone else. You ought to write the clerk of court and ask why they aproved and signed a summons WITHOUT a creditable witness. Geez Louise, all this is obsurd

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

OK, I need feedback, so here's the deal:



I was downtown today doing a search for the Land Patent, and I came back home and a Sheriff's deputy had given a summons to my wife for me. She admitted that this was the address when he questioned her and also gave her name. (LESSON LEARNED: She won't do that again.)



I wrote this alleged creditor weeks back and asked for certified verification. They sent a notarized copy of the bill, and a couple sheets that I had signed. One was a “Patient Information” sheet, and the other was a “Credit & Billing Policy” Sheet. I am asking SJ to upload those now so that I can put them on here for your viewing.





A while back they called here (bill collecting) This was about the time that I had just sunk my teeth into SJ, and I asked for certified verification of the alleged debt.



I then sent them a letter asking the following:



May 16, 2004



YOUR ACCOUNT # XXXXX AMOUNT $200.00



I am requesting the following re this alleged debt:

(1.) Certified verification of the alleged debt referenced above.

(2.) Please provide copies of any contracts that I have signed re the alleged debt.



You sent me a copy of a paper titled Patient Information, but this is not a contract. If you have questions on what is required for a contract to exist, I suggest you confer with whoever addresses legal issues for you.







Sincerely,







Henry Franklin Bowman

*************



The above letter was sent certified, return receipt, and I have the receipt. Ducks are covered there.



Then today, I get home and this summons is waiting on me.



Here is what I am already picking up on my defenses at the moment.





1. Summons names the plaintiff as the doctors office, but where it says “Signature of Plaintiff or Attorney” (I hope it’s an attorney  ) there is a stamped signature, with Ms. Smith There is no full name of the person making the complaint active. What’s up with that? I should be able to find that out in discovery, huh?



2. Another thing, and I am sure Jerseee will say this is the MAIN thing, I asked for, but never got a certified verification that the alleged debt is valid. I asked for it before they filed action against my commercial person.



3. Another thing, the summons names HENRY F. BOWMAN as the defendant.



They cannot prove that there is a HENRY F. BOWMAN. They definitely can’t prove that I am him, cause that ain’t my name. (I am too eager to learn the process to shut it down too early, so I really want to go to this to see how I can handle it. I mean, it’s for less than $200, and it's all fake money anyway)



4. On the back of the summons, there are places for the deputy to certify that he served the summons. The problem with that, is that it isn’t signed or even filled out. Another problem, is that although my wife made a mistake by agreeing that the address was right, and gave her name, the Deputy never asked her if Henry F. Bowman lived here or resided here, as the summons refers to it. That is his peril. He did not establish that



“By leaving a copy of summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the defendant named above with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.”



Nor did he ask my wife if she “resides” here. Again, his peril.



This was the ONLY option he could have chosen, and it wasn’t even right. 



5. Another thing is that on the “Patient Information” sheet, I clearly state that I am unemployed, thus there is no capacity to be responsible for a “payment.”



OK, Should I go ahead and send them a CPN or do I need to file an affidavit stating the facts?



It's small claims, so it's before a magistrate. They are probably as dubm as a box of rocks. Should I just move to have a Jury Trial?



Let me have your opinions I also need the cites that say copies of something cannot serve as verification of a debt. How would YOU attack this. I am asking for opinions, and will not take any reply as legal advice!



Thanks,



HB

[wirlwind]

I sometimes get confused. The reason that I terminated my CC accountys because there wasn't full disclosure when I signed the agreements. They didn't disclose the fact that they weren't loaning me anything, and they weren't risking any assets. That is what makes the contract fraudulent. In verification of the loan this is mentioned, but then the focus of the whole process moves to the existence of a contract. The contract was breached when the CC comoany didn't give full disclosure, but I didn't know that until several years later. I made payments on those cards for several years. Why can not the argument that critical inofrmation was withheld when the contract was signed be used? Just curious.



Donna

Originally Posted by LindseyH

It appears to me that you need to demand that the case be dismissed on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction has NOT been established. In order for subject matter jurisdiction to be established there must FIRST be an injury, SECONDLY a creditable witness to the injury and THIRD a statement by which relief can be made. The first two have NOT been established. An affidavit MUST be signed and notorized, othewise it cannot be used as evidence and a stamped signature cannot be notorized. Besides, the injury was NOT to the credit collection company anyway. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction does not appear to have been established in that this collection company does not do business in your state so why do they think they've got access to your court. Contest the jurisdiction of the court. Furthermore, due process of law has NOT been fullfilled on their part, as they have NOT responded to your good faith effort to resolve this issue by asking them to verify the debt, so it ought to be thrown out on that alone.

Let's see here, there is a complaint filed in court from someone who has not had an injury verified by someone that doesn't exist (stamped signature - plausable deniability) with a summons served to someone else. You ought to write the clerk of court and ask why they aproved and signed a summons WITHOUT a creditable witness. Geez Louise, all this is obsurd

Lindsey, Thank you for your reply. I totally agree with you that there is not a credible witness, but all things in good time. This is my turn to learn. Not by choice, but I want to make the best of it. I sent them a 3 page interrogatory, asking many of the questions in the debt collector disclosure statement. I also sent them (and filed at the courthouse) a demand for trial by jury. Remember this is over less than $200 and it was supposed to be covered by workers comp. I never had any intention of entering into a contract or setting up an account, and in my mind, I never gave them that authority. It doesn't appear that I gave it to them on paper either, but I figure that they have an attorney taking card of this and I will get to have a little vindication when the clock ticks off to court date.



I presume that they will get my letter and the demand for Jury Trial, and they will look at the questions I am asking and say "We ain't gonna get into this for a less than $200 amount." I should receive a letter very soon saying that they are dropping charges, but if not, it's my turn to learn. I am learning at a rapid pace, and I know to keep them on the side of having to prove their case. I know to not argue (I think) (jerseee cringes)



This is really a learning experience, because I like to argue, but that is counterproductive to winning. Everywhere I interact now, I will hear Jerseee in my ear saying "DON'T ARGUE.



I mean that in the nicest of ways. He really is helping me see the light.



HB

Originally Posted by wirlwind

I sometimes get confused. The reason that I terminated my CC accountys because there wasn't full disclosure when I signed the agreements. They didn't disclose the fact that they weren't loaning me anything, and they weren't risking any assets. That is what makes the contract fraudulent. In verification of the loan this is mentioned, but then the focus of the whole process moves to the existence of a contract. The contract was breached when the CC comoany didn't give full disclosure, but I didn't know that until several years later. I made payments on those cards for several years. Why can not the argument that critical inofrmation was withheld when the contract was signed be used? Just curious.



Donna

Donna, the bottom line is that I was directed to go here by workers comp, and they they didn't pay one small part of it. I had no intention of paying anything or having an account set up.



And I didn't even know all of the truth I DO know now.

[wirlwind]

Henry,



Sorry, I think I posted that on the wrong thread. Your situation is totally different.



Did you ask the company that the WC was through why it wasn't paid? I am a plant nurse, and we often get bills from doctors on WC cases that we forward on to our WC insurers. I would ask the company nurse why it wasn't paid. If you were told to go there and it was authorized then it should have been paid by WC. I'd be finding out from someone in the company why it wasn't. That isn't your bill.



Donna

[Jerseee]

All,



There is too much going back and forth and not enough verification.



Please get the CRAs involved if you can. The results of their investigation will aide in your court battles if you have any.



LindseyH has a good way to go about it (very effective) but the fact is that there has been no verification. Everything esle is being discussed but that.



This is why I stress "OFFER A GOOD FAITH PAYMENT". Damn, I mean it is payment that they want right? This is why they are going through this whole process to get someone to pay for something--right?



Well have you CPN on standby and have a notary witness your signature!!! You have a public official signing your docs (one of their guys). You have the CRAs providing you with evidence as well (if you can get it quickly). These are there guys that they use against you. Going to the same guys to work for you and get the evidence you need should work for you too.



They can't have it both ways. They can't report to the CRAs the alleged debt and then when you get evidence from the CRAs that it could not be verified--they can't dismiss the CRAs finidings if they have been using them to damage you in the first place.



Asking for bookeeping logs and other things from the creditor through any means is not too sound. Just as you cannot incriminate yourself--they have the same right. So what makes anyone think that they are going to willingly turn over their docs to the person that they are trying to screw? A more practical method is to use the same agencies that they need to hammer you. Notaries, CRAs, sherriff's department, IRS and so forth.



The whole point is to get them arguing with each other and demanding verification at the same time. This is all anyone one of us should be concerned with is CERTIFIED VERIFICATION. Nothing more.



Once that has been established then we can use our remedy. Which they can debate about later--maybe hard since it is public policy but they can try. they have that right.



This is just my opinion on the matter.