Consequences of transacting business without authority.--

[truth4all]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

It's routinely called the "mailbox rule."

Given that they mail tens of thousands of these to people in the normal course of business, the courts accept the fact that they followed their customary procedure.

What iamfreeru2 has not yet addressed are the relevant background facts that will probably decide the case:

1) Did he/she obtain goods and services via the use of the card?

If so, the obtaining of those establishes the debt. There is no free lunch.

2) Were payments ever made by him/her to the company on that account?

If so, that is recognition of the debt.

The legal maneuvering being played out here is nothing new.

Don't say the Judge never gave you anything?
If their "purchased evidence" doesn't show a payment from you, they have no proof of "recgonition" of the debt.

All they would have proof of is an offer that has been refused.
They made an offer, you refused it! Pretty simple.
Remember, you do NOT have to answer anything that may incriminate you !
They cannot make you testify against yourself !
(Disclaimer)This is NOT legal advice.
But thanks, Judge Roy.
Got any other "pearls" for us?



another egg...

[Jerseee]

Judge,

Since you want to mention relevant facts don't forget to ask these questions:

Will the CC compnay produce the original application/note with original signatures to verify the alleged debt?

Did the CC Company alter the original note after it was signed without the knowledge and consent of all parties involved?

Did the CC company claim the application/note as an asset and get consideration for it?

What did the CC company lend and what will it lose?

I could go on but the point is, it is not a free lunch we are talking about---we are talking about fraud being committed (probably).

All we want are answers to these types of questions and furthermore, no one is refusing to pay--in fact, folks will pay it in full with interest if these questions can be answered. Hell, if the debt is valid, then it should not be a problem to show and produce this information. The originals--not copies. Just for examination.

why is this so hard to do, especially when its part of the rules of your court system?

Oh, none of those questions are irrelevant either--especially when one is offering to pay in full upon disclosure of that information. And just as the CC Companies mail out "bills" to collect--they are more than guilty of mail fraud if one judge allows the exposure to occur--instead of obstructing justice.

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

It's routinely called the "mailbox rule."

Given that they mail tens of thousands of these to people in the normal course of business, the courts accept the fact that they followed their customary procedure.

What iamfreeru2 has not yet addressed are the relevant background facts that will probably decide the case:

1) Did he/she obtain goods and services via the use of the card?

If so, the obtaining of those establishes the debt. There is no free lunch.

2) Were payments ever made by him/her to the company on that account?

If so, that is recognition of the debt.

The legal maneuvering being played out here is nothing new.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Judge,

Since you want to mention relevant facts don't forget to ask these questions:

Will the CC compnay produce the original application/note with original signatures to verify the alleged debt?

Did the CC Company alter the original note after it was signed without the knowledge and consent of all parties involved?

Did the CC company claim the application/note as an asset and get consideration for it?

What did the CC company lend and what will it lose?

I could go on but the point is, it is not a free lunch we are talking about---we are talking about fraud being committed (probably).

All we want are answers to these types of questions and furthermore, no one is refusing to pay--in fact, folks will pay it in full with interest if these questions can be answered. Hell, if the debt is valid, then it should not be a problem to show and produce this information. The originals--not copies. Just for examination.

why is this so hard to do, especially when its part of the rules of your court system?

Oh, none of those questions are irrelevant either--especially when one is offering to pay in full upon disclosure of that information. And just as the CC Companies mail out "bills" to collect--they are more than guilty of mail fraud if one judge allows the exposure to occur--instead of obstructing justice.

Thanks Jerseee,

There are other issues that will show a lack of standing to sue as well. These are all being requested in the production of documents and a motion to compel will be filed if need be, then another motion to dismiss. This is not to mention some of the things you brought up above. All in all Discover Bank is going to have it tough or should I say counsel for the so-called plaintiff will. HAHA!!

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by truth4all

Don't say the Judge never gave you anything?
If their "purchased evidence" doesn't show a payment from you, they have no proof of "recgonition" of the debt.

All they would have proof of is an offer that has been refused.
They made an offer, you refused it! Pretty simple.
Remember, you do NOT have to answer anything that may incriminate you !
They cannot make you testify against yourself !
(Disclaimer)This is NOT legal advice.
But thanks, Judge Roy.
Got any other "pearls" for us?



another egg...

Thanks for your post too Truth4all. I haven't taken it as advice, but your input is welcomed.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by truth4all

Judge Roy wouldn't tell you this !
another egg for your basket...

Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., A Bank Corporation, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Danny H. Whiteley, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number: 25925


"A suit on open account means a suit in contract for each purchase transaction." Medicine Shoppe International, Inc. v. Mehra, 882 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo.App. 1994). To recover on a suit on account, a plaintiff must show an offer, an acceptance, and consideration between the parties as well as the correctness of the account and the reasonableness of the charges. Welsch Furnace Co, Inc. v. Vescovo, 805 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Mo.App. 1991). "Such evidence consists of proof that: 1) Defendant requested plaintiff to furnish merchandise or services; 2) plaintiff accepted the offer of the defendant by furnishing such merchandise or services; and 3) the charges were reasonable." Id.
Even if this court were to accept plaintiff's assertion that providing credit to a credit card holder amounted to providing a service for purposes of maintaining a suit on account, an issue this court need not and does not address, the evidence was silent as to the reasonableness of any charge that was made to defendant. A party bringing a cause of action cannot prevail if one or more elements of the cause of action are not supported by substantial evidence. Vintila v. Drassen, 52 S.W.3d 28, 38 (Mo.App. 2001); Mills Realty, Inc. v. Wolff, 910 S.W.2d 320, 322 (Mo.App. 1995). Further, as asserted by defendant, defendant scrupulously objected throughout the trial to any evidence that was outside plaintiff's pleadings.
Plaintiff's attorney assured the trial court at the commencement of trial that plaintiff had no credit card agreement signed by defendant; that plaintiff was "suing on an account theory, suit on account."

Q. My question is, you, being Citibank of South Dakota, didn't provide any merchandise, did you?

A. No.
Q. You didn't provide any goods to the defendant, did you?
A. No, just a service.

Q. And you didn't come out and perform any services for the defendant and charge him for that, did you?

Defendant's point is granted. The judgment is reversed. The case is remanded. The trial court is directed to enter judgment for defendant.

Also,See Associated Bearings Co. v. Southwest Latex Supply, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 918, 919 (Mo. App. 1998) (in an action to recover on an account, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant requested plaintiff to furnish merchandise or services, plaintiff accepted defendant's offer by furnishing such merchandise or services, and the charges were reasonable);

I especially like this input Truth4 all. Thank you very much for this post. It is much appreciated. I found more regarding this in Florida case law. (grin)

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
JRB consider this question: can the "Discover family" prove that it either has not already or is not getting paid (i.e. as a result of their 'secretly' converting the signature page and turning said signature page into a negotiable instrument)?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
JRB consider this question: can the "Discover family" prove that it either has not already or is not getting paid (i.e. as a result of their 'secretly' converting the signature page and turning said signature page into a negotiable instrument)?

They don't have to. That issue is immaterial to whether or not the cardholder obtained goods or services using the card then failed to pay as agreed.

If someone shoplifts, there is no viable defense based upon whether or not the store has yet paid the invoice for the goods that were taken without payment.

[Jerseee]

Shoplifting is not conversion of a document. Bad example judge-try again.

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

They don't have to. That issue is immaterial to whether or not the cardholder obtained goods or services using the card then failed to pay as agreed.

If someone shoplifts, there is no viable defense based upon whether or not the store has yet paid the invoice for the goods that were taken without payment.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Shoplifting is not conversion of a document. Bad example judge-try again.

Neither is using a CC to acquire goods and services and not paying for it.

It's an excellent example of how the real-world views people who try to dodge debts they've amassed with creative but bogus legal theories.

So many of these cases finally boil all the BS and maneuvering down to the fact that John used his credit card to buy stuff and then stopped making the payments. Then he discovered some stuff on the Internet about how the banks screw everybody so he decided he didn't have to pay for it.

Judgment for the plaintiff/lender. 99.999999999% of the time when the borrower tries to get around the fact that he or she acquired something without paying for it.

In its most simple terms, people (including juries) see it just like shoplifting.

It makes it even harder for everyone who has to fight the bogus debt collectors when they try and hit you with charges that actually don't belong to you.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Neither is using a CC to acquire goods and services and not paying for it.

It's an excellent example of how real-world views people who try to dodge debts they've amassed with creative but bogus legal theories.

So many of these cases finally boil all the BS and maneuvering down to the fact that John used his credit card to buy stuff and then stopped making the payments. Then he discovered some stuff on the Internet about how the banks screw everybody so he decided he didn't have to pay for it.

Judgment for the plaintiff/lender. 99.999999999% of the time when the borrower tries to get around the fact that he or she acquired something without paying for it.

In its most simple terms, people (including juries) see it just like shoplifting.

JRB,

There are those of us that know the truth whether you and others like you try to obfuscate and distort. The fact is that the CCC are commiting fraud everyday. Most of us did not know that until after the fact. Does that mean we have to continue in it? I think not. It is not a matter of not paying a legitimate debt. I, for one, pay all of my legitimate debts, but I will not be forced to pay a fraud. Now you can sit there and vilify all you want, but that does not negate the truth now does it.