Summons came today Check it out.

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

[sadie]

You might want to look up your state and local rules of civil procedure under summons and service.



In my state, Mississippi, they can send a summons and if not delivered they can inital the envelope and it is considered served. Figure that one.



I am just wondering why would this process be used to fight paying a legitimate bill. The doctor provided a service and billed you for it. You expect to get paid for your labor.



This is not the same as credit card or mortgage where the bank creates journal entries and provides you nothing for what they are attempting to get from you.

[gregtu]

Remember you must reject their offer to contract. FIRE THEM ALL!!! Make sure you mail it back certified mail within 72 hours. If not, by your silence, you have agreed to contract with them.

sadie, I understand your take on this, and I should have explained. This was a visit directed by workers comp, who then refused to pay for part of the visits. I had no intention of paying when I went in, I was just following the directive of workers comp carrier.



I did not get in this to shaft them, nor did I get in this for them to shaft me.



besides, they haven't verified the debt.

Originally Posted by gregtu

Remember you must reject their offer to contract. FIRE THEM ALL!!! Make sure you mail it back certified mail within 72 hours. If not, by your silence, you have agreed to contract with them.

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



Thanks



HB

Thanks for all responses.

[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

[Jerseee]

HB,



I'm not sure of the situation and of course i have no first hand knowledge. BUt what you are speaking of--you are already in dishonor.



If you read the letter that you wrote to them to yourself--you will see that you are giving testimony and you are starting the argument process.



By stating, "I am not" this and "I am not" that, you give them room to question you and not the debt. In fact you may have inadvertently become their witness that they need to verify the debt.



THink about it...



Now I hope you understand why I say, "Never argue".



Re-Read your letter to yourself as if you were receiving it--then you will see that you have probably done more harm than good.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

HB,



I'm not sure of the situation and of course i have no first hand knowledge. BUt what you are speaking of--you are already in dishonor.



If you read the letter that you wrote to them to yourself--you will see that you are giving testimony and you are starting the argument process.



By stating, "I am not" this and "I am not" that, you give them room to question you and not the debt. In fact you may have inadvertently become their witness that they need to verify the debt.



THink about it...



Now I hope you understand why I say, "Never argue".



Re-Read your letter to yourself as if you were receiving it--then you will see that you have probably done more harm than good.

Jerseee,



in my letter, I asked for verification and any contracts that I had signed.



I stated that what they sent me was not a contract. Did I screw up by doing that? I know that was arguing, and I won't do that again (hopefully), but I didn't say "I am this" or "I am that" or even deny anything personally. I just denied that they had sent me a contract. Notice I wrote it in my upper and lower case name, which they do NOT have listed as the "account holder."



Do you have any suggestions? I mean your response comes off as "OHHH Man, yer screwed".



I really wanted helpful thoughts, and although I deserved the dressing down for arguing, I would have appreciated a balance there. Fact remains, that I still have this in front of me, and an "I told you so," while deserved just ain't much of a help.



Thanks for your response.



HB

[Jerseee]

HB,



Gotcha.



The one thing about posting or e-mailing is that writings do not reflect pitch or tone. Writings can sometimes be emotionless or miscontrue someone's position.



So, I apologize if it read like a slam or a "I told you so".



Suggestion:

Tactfully address their accusations but do not confirm nor deny any of their claims that do not pertain to verification.



Then, address the verification or lack thereof, that they must provide. Summones, threats of law suits, extortion, arbitration, etc.. and all documents you receive stating such things should be kept for evidence--should you go to court. Racketeering and threats/demands for payment are against the law you know. In fact, I call it terrorism.



Remember, attornies cannot give testimony without swearing in (don't worry they won't swear in). Go to the downloads section and see the rules for objections. When an attorney starts testifying about facts--object to it. And you need to know those rules if you have to go to court. ALso, watch the Richard Cornforth vidoes.



Every response you receive that does not have verification included--address the threats and bogus claims but always---ALWAYS demand verification and offer payment immediately if it can be verified.



offering a good faith payment (in full) upon verification eliminates the argument. Since it is payment they want--you will be more than pleased to tender payment (including interest if necessary) immediately, upon proof of their claim. This should be in all of your responses. It would eliminate all the threats or it should. But with that statement in your documents to them, it puts you in honor. Hell, if the debt is valid and you are offering to pay it--why would they have a problem showing you proof that you owe it? (hint: have your CPN ready)



Remember, you are not their witness, so asking you did you receive this or receive that is not verification. That is why I mentioned you may have unwittingly given testimony in writing. I am not certain but any debateable response may trigger the burden of proof being shifted from where it should be. This isthe key to whole scheme. To get you to agrue about something, then asking you questions about the situation, leading you to answer questions about the alleged debt, getting you to admit to certain truths, and tying your statements with their questions giving the appearance of truth through your admission through their questioning. All the while they never show any verifiable original document.



How's that for a suggestion?