Go Back   Suijuris Forums > Educational & Learning > Banks, Collectors, and CRAs
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-22-2006, 11:32 AM
gratisman gratisman is offline
Unplugged
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 65
I think you're missing my point

I think you're missing my point.

This is the letter that I used to respond in writing to the LAWSUIT that I was served with. I sent it to the court as my response to the "ALLEGATIONS."

First and foremost - the lawsuit is allegations until they can prove their claim. It doesn't matter when you start the process. It is not too late.

If the plaintiff bringing the lawsuit is not the original credit grantor: they cannot prove their claim.

It doesn't matter what he did before. Make them PROVE THEIR CLAIM. Conditionally accept what they are alleging upon proof.

If he doesn't request proof of claim, they will get their default judgement.

Remember - don't argue, don't agree (by your silence), simply agree to comply once they prove their claim. And that is something they cannot and will not do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOBT12
In general this is good advice. However, I agee with Ice, there are problems applicable to Kris' situation:

1. This should have been done much sooner (perhaps within 30 days of the first notice).

2. Even if he sent the notice to the dept collector, I think that they have 30 days to respond. Kris will will run out of time before the dept collector. The dept collector will probably not respond, and simply seek a default judgment instead.

3. Kris has a summons/compliant which he must respond to, within 30 days, probably a good bit sooner.

4. If Kris fails to deal with the summons/compliant, or the hearing, there will likely be a default judgment registered against him.

Nevertheless many of these issues may be raised during the court process, if Kris chooses this strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-22-2006, 12:06 PM
Ice's Avatar
Ice Ice is offline
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,866
This goes to proper standing of the parties.

They can't prove they have ever had any business dealings with you at all. They are not "Creditor", and do not have proper standing to sue.

What must be proved is that they have the right to sue on behalf of the original creditor. A contract must be provided that demonstrates your agreement to the "assignment" of the contract/debt to a third party. The third party must then be liable to disclose his contract for the alleged debt. And I don't think they want to do that because it may state what they actually paid for the debt and then you can plainly see that you are being "overcharged" in a court action for a debt you don't owe.

Is that about right?

Ice
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-22-2006, 12:44 PM
BOBT12's Avatar
BOBT12 BOBT12 is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pennsylvania republic
Posts: 1,372
Wink Way to GO!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
This goes to proper standing of the parties.

They can't prove they have ever had any business dealings with you at all. They are not "Creditor", and do not have proper standing to sue.

What must be proved is that they have the right to sue on behalf of the original creditor. A contract must be provided that demonstrates your agreement to the "assignment" of the contract/debt to a third party. The third party must then be liable to disclose his contract for the alleged debt. And I don't think they want to do that because it may state what they actually paid for the debt and then you can plainly see that you are being "overcharged" in a court action for a debt you don't owe.

Is that about right?

Ice
This is a nice bit of work Ice. I hope Kris can make use of it.
__________________
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-- Thomas Jefferson

It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire

All Rights Reserved.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-22-2006, 01:22 PM
mikah2k's Avatar
mikah2k mikah2k is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 338
example docs

You may have to change Ripoff Bank to Ripoff Collections for your situation.
The only things missing are a d.b.a. and an affidavit of service.
----- MOTION TO DISMISS BEGIN----
State's_name
county's_name

In the circuit court for the ___ judicial circuit
county's_name - city_name, State's name

)
Ripoff Bank,
)
case no. ____
plaintiff
)
vs.
)
Name_of_"JUDGE",
truename d.b.a. LEGALNAME
)
judge
defendant
)
Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer
)
Motion is hereby made to dismiss plaintiff's case with prejudice as plantiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

This __ day of _____, A.D. 20__.
Prepared and submitted by:
___________
Truename
c/o street_address
city, state [zip]

state's_name
county's_name

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state and said county, a man, _________ signed by act and deed the foregoing instrument.

Given under my hand and seal on the above written date.

_____________________________
notary printed name and signature

----- ORDER TO DISMISS BEGIN ----
State's_name
county's_name

In the circuit court for the ___ judicial circuit
county's_name - city_name, State's name

)
Ripoff Bank,
)
case no. ____
plaintiff
)
vs.
)
Name_of_"JUDGE",
truename d.b.a. LEGALNAME
)
judge
defendant
)
Order to Dismiss
)

This case is hereby dismissed ( ) without ( ) with prejudice.

Entered this ___ day of the ___ month, A.D. 20___.

By: _________________
Name_of_"JUDGE", Judge


----- Affidavit in support of Motion TO DISMISS BEGIN----
State's_name
county's_name

In the circuit court for the ___ judicial circuit
county's_name - city_name, State's name

)
Ripoff Bank,
)
case no. ____
plaintiff
)
vs.
)
Name_of_"JUDGE",
truename d.b.a. LEGALNAME
)
judge
defendant
)
Affidavit in support of Motion to Dismiss
)


Notice unto Principal is notice unto Agents. Notice unto Agents is notice unto Principal.

I, Truename, Affiant, am a living soul, in correct public capacity as beneficiary to the Original Jurisdiction, unrepresented, unschooled in law, ....[IF YOU KNOW NOT ANYTHING TO ADD THEN DELETE ELLIPSES], My yes be yes, My no be no, do declare, in restricted appearance under Rule E(8), that the truths and facts herein are of first hand knowledge, true, correct, not misleading, so help Me Almighty God.

1. Affiant is of majority age and competent to testify.
2. Affiant has firsthand knowledge of the facts stated herein.
3. Affiant is unrepresented by counsel.
4. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Affiant has an alleged contract with Ripoff Bank, and Affiant believes none exists.
5. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Affaint owes Ripoff Bank money, and Affiant believes none exists.
6. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows a full accounting of the alleged obligation which Ripoff Bank is attempting to collect, and Affiant believes none exists.
7. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Ripoff Bank has standing to sue Affiant, and Affiant believes none exists.
8. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Ripoff Bank has any competent fact witness with firsthand testimony to support allegations of Ripoff Bank, and Affiant believes none exists.
9. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Ripoff Bank by false claims and/or unvalidated claims is not attempting to steal, deprive and extort at least ___ dollars from Affiant and/or Affiant's property, and Affiant believes none exists.

If not rebutted within ten (10) days by lawful evidence to the contrary, this affidavit is at law evidence that the court has not subject matter jurisdiction and no lawful evidence with which to decide in favor of Ripoff Bank, and a default exists. Failure to present evidence to the contrary of the Affiant's testimony, is evidence that all parties stipulate to the facts herein as true, correct and complete.

Further Affiant saith naught.

Before Almighty God and under His statutes, I, truename, Affiant, declare that the foregoing is the truth in accord with the best of My firsthand knowledge on this __ day of _____, A.D. 20__.

Prepared and submitted by:
___________
Truename
c/o street_address
city, state [zip]

state's_name
county's_name

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state and said county, a man, _________ signed by act and deed the foregoing instrument.

Given under my hand and seal on the above written date.

_____________________________
notary printed name and signature

Last edited by mikah2k : 06-23-2006 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-22-2006, 02:03 PM
acicalla acicalla is offline
Waking Up
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 46
Fire the attorney

I don't understand why you could not just do and affidavit requesting a verification/validation of the debt, and also send back a copy of the original letter written across it "accepted and returned for closure in this matter if you think your representing me your fired!"
In any debt collection regardless of if it's just starting or if it's going to court you can request the validation which stops the collection until it can be validated. This would 1) give you more time, 2) require that they come up with the original contract that you signed with them for goods and services 3) requires them to get a new attorney for the process. Because that attorney is re-presenting you unless you fire him. Even the opposing attorney. So fire him and tell him he can not make a legal determination for you. That attorney's license to practice comes from you consent by assent "Fire Him!!!". Aslo if this has gone to the court, then I would take a copy of what you send to that attorney and file it into the docket in that court so that you have the validation of debt entered on the record. How can the judge allow him to collect if he can't come up with the original contract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikah2k
You may have to change Ripoff Bank to Ripoff Collections for your situation.
The only things missing are a d.b.a. and an affidavit of service.
----- MOTION TO DISMISS BEGIN----
State's_name
county's_name

In the circuit court for the ___ judicial circuit
county's_name - city_name, State's name

)
Ripoff Bank,
)
case no. ____
plaintiff
)
vs.
)
Name_of_"JUDGE",
truename d.b.a. LEGALNAME
)
judge
defendant
)
Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer
)
Motion is hereby made to dismiss plaintiff's case with prejudice as plantiff has failed to state a cliam upon which relief can be granted.

This __ day of _____, A.D. 20__.
Prepared and submitted by:
___________
Truename
c/o street_address
city, state [zip]

state's_name
county's_name

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state and said county, a man, _________ signed by act and deed the foregoing instrument.

Given under my hand and seal on the above written date.

_____________________________
notary printed name and signature

----- ORDER TO DISMISS BEGIN ----
State's_name
county's_name

In the circuit court for the ___ judicial circuit
county's_name - city_name, State's name

)
Ripoff Bank,
)
case no. ____
plaintiff
)
vs.
)
Name_of_"JUDGE",
truename d.b.a. LEGALNAME
)
judge
defendant
)
Order to Dismiss
)

This case is hereby dismissed ( ) without ( ) with prejudice.

Entered this ___ day of the ___ month, A.D. 20___.

By: _________________
Name_of_"JUDGE", Judge


----- Affidavit in support of Motion TO DISMISS BEGIN----
State's_name
county's_name

In the circuit court for the ___ judicial circuit
county's_name - city_name, State's name

)
Ripoff Bank,
)
case no. ____
plaintiff
)
vs.
)
Name_of_"JUDGE",
truename d.b.a. LEGALNAME
)
judge
defendant
)
Affidavit in support of Motion to Dismiss
)


Notice unto Principal is notice unto Agents. Notice unto Agents is notice unto Principal.

I, Truename, Affiant, am a living soul, in correct public capacity as beneficiary to the Original Jurisdiction, unrepresented, unschooled in law, ....[IF YOU KNOW NOT ANYTHING TO ADD THEN DELETE ELLIPSES], My yes be yes, My no be no, do declare, in restricted appearance under Rule E(8), that the truths and facts herein are of first hand knowledge, true, correct, not misleading, so help Me Almighty God.

1. Affiant is of majority age and competent to testify.
2. Affiant has firsthand knowledge of the facts stated herein.
3. Affiant is unrepresented by counsel.
4. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Affiant has an alleged contract with Ripoff Bank, and Affiant believes none exists.
5. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Affaint owes Ripoff Bank money, and Affiant believes none exists.
6. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows a full accounting of the alleged obligation which Ripoff Bank is attempting to collect, and Affiant believes none exists.
7. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Ripoff Bank has standing to sue Affiant, and Affiant believes none exists.
8. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Ripoff Bank has any competent fact witness with firsthand testimony to support allegations of Ripoff Bank, and Affiant believes none exists.
9. Affiant is not in receipt of any material fact or evidence which shows Ripoff Bank by false claims and/or unvalidated claims is not attempting to steal, deprive and extort at least ___ dollars from Affiant and/or Affiant's property, and Affiant believes none exists.

If not rebutted within ten (10) days by lawful evidence to the contrary, this affidavit is at law evidence that the court has not subject matter jurisdiction and no lawful evidence with which to decide in favor of Ripoff Bank, and a default exists. Failure to present evidence to the contrary of the Affiant's testimony, is evidence that all parties stipulate to the facts herein as true, correct and complete.

Further Affiant saith naught.

Before Almighty God and under His statutes, I, truename, Affiant, declare that the foregoing is the truth in accord with the best of My firsthand knowledge on this __ day of _____, A.D. 20__.

Prepared and submitted by:
___________
Truename
c/o street_address
city, state [zip]

state's_name
county's_name

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state and said county, a man, _________ signed by act and deed the foregoing instrument.

Given under my hand and seal on the above written date.

_____________________________
notary printed name and signature

Last edited by acicalla : 06-22-2006 at 02:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-22-2006, 02:07 PM
masterduke masterduke is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Water Wonderland
Posts: 1,185
The problem is that the credit/debt collector "industry" has had well over 100 years to set case precedent regarding the assignment of third party debt collectors and the courts and judges are more than willing to allow the debt attorneys to come forward as the true holder of the debt. As the black robed meatball sub blurted out in court concerning my "debt" on this very issue, "Yes that is true, they(debt attorneys) buy these debts for pennies on the dollar, its called capitalism, welcome to amerika". So precedent is set. And the judge will uphold that finding, unless you are able to derail the attack via some other angle as this angle has long ago been determined. The judge is not going to rule against the banking industry that is for sure. So you have to find another path of attack.
Heck the case cite they use in Michigan MCR 6145 goes back to some case precedent that was set back in 1924 concerning a debt. So wolpoff wins another one, the creeps......
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-22-2006, 09:06 PM
gratisman gratisman is offline
Unplugged
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 65
Masterduke,

I don't understand. I understand what the result was, but not how they won their award. How did they prove their claim?

I'm just trying to learn. I have a case where the mortgage servicer is trying to foreclose and quiet title. But I don't think they can prove their claim.

I am writing my response - Conditionally accepting their claim for value upon proof of claim. That they are entitled to enforce and recover an alleged commercial claim against me.

I don't know if it will work, but it's all I've got.

That's why I'd like to know how you got to this point in your case. What was your argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterduke
The problem is that the credit/debt collector "industry" has had well over 100 years to set case precedent regarding the assignment of third party debt collectors and the courts and judges are more than willing to allow the debt attorneys to come forward as the true holder of the debt. As the black robed meatball sub blurted out in court concerning my "debt" on this very issue, "Yes that is true, they(debt attorneys) buy these debts for pennies on the dollar, its called capitalism, welcome to amerika". So precedent is set. And the judge will uphold that finding, unless you are able to derail the attack via some other angle as this angle has long ago been determined. The judge is not going to rule against the banking industry that is for sure. So you have to find another path of attack.
Heck the case cite they use in Michigan MCR 6145 goes back to some case precedent that was set back in 1924 concerning a debt. So wolpoff wins another one, the creeps......
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-23-2006, 11:40 AM
Ice's Avatar
Ice Ice is offline
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,866
I do not see where this [the above posted motion] addresses the "Plaintiffs lack of proper standing."

If it somehow does... please explain. I know that the lack of standing should be specifically addressed within the motion to dismiss.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-23-2006, 11:53 AM
Ice's Avatar
Ice Ice is offline
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,866
Whoa!!! (Here, hold this)...

Wouldn't the fact that Cheatem lawfirm purchased a $1000.00 debt for $200.00, and their filing of suit for $1,000.00 be a "fraud" upon the court?? They can only demonstrate that they show a debt of $200.00 -- right? So where do they get the $1,000.00 claim??

And this also demonstrates that the "alleged original creditor" has "forgiven" the $800.00 (by writing off the entire debt for the $200.00 that Cheatem paid for it).

Think about it... a very good reason they wouldn't want to disclose the terms of the purchase of the alleged debt.

Ice



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
This goes to proper standing of the parties.

They can't prove they have ever had any business dealings with you at all. They are not "Creditor", and do not have proper standing to sue.

What must be proved is that they have the right to sue on behalf of the original creditor. A contract must be provided that demonstrates your agreement to the "assignment" of the contract/debt to a third party. The third party must then be liable to disclose his contract for the alleged debt. And I don't think they want to do that because it may state what they actually paid for the debt and then you can plainly see that you are being "overcharged" in a court action for a debt you don't owe.

Is that about right?

Ice
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-23-2006, 02:04 PM
Jerseee's Avatar
Jerseee Jerseee is offline
Come and Get Some!
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,837
IMHO,

Kris...you may need to suck this up as a loss and learn from this while getting raked over the coals. I say this because....

What is going on in this forum is a proactive approach to educating the less knowledgeable before a crisis occurs. The reason for this approach is two-fold:

1. It is education of the world around you that you have not been taught while you were young.

2. It prepares you to handle yourself accordingly when the villians-a-come-a-knockin'

3. (bonus) it teaches you how to be sovereign. keep in mind I said, "teach"; not "pay", or "buy" paperwork for sovereignty--but teach.

You need to really study. because these guys here are challenging your knowledge--not your wallet. when you are here actively learning (without a crisis) you can focus more on retention versus defense.

Without this knowledge to fight back, you are toast. But worst than that, if you acquire half the knowledge and lack the other half and try to fight back--you are hosed!!! Because once you start down that road of knowing just what ever was said to you here and not from your own studies---they are going to make an example out of you because they will see that you are limited on knowledge and begin to run circles around you.

next thing you know, you are arguing and admitting that you owe it (without realizing you did).

god speed
__________________
"FOR AS HE THINKETH IN HIS HEART, SO IS HE."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help -- Fast BenGera Travel 46 06-21-2006 06:04 PM
Need Statue fast... altered document juststartingout Court 3 04-28-2006 06:20 PM
Now, you can't even pay them off fast rushpat Banks, Collectors, and CRAs 0 03-02-2006 01:48 PM
Emergency!! The Feds have pulled another fast one!! bruce End Days of America 14 11-11-2005 02:31 AM
How to Fast weishaupt1776 Health 11 05-13-2005 10:11 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
2003-2007 Copyright by Law Research Group, LLC Terms of Use | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Notice/Disclaimer