Consequences of transacting business without authority.--

[citizensoldier]

[quote=Judge Roy Bean]What they're really perpetrating is their horribly one-sided agreements that let them change the rules as they go along. The biggest problem is people keep signing themselves into these things without actually understanding them, then they don't even bother to make photocopies or scan them for their own records.[\QUOTE]

I believe JRB has given us the REASON the money interests are so successful in getting around the case law and statutes being used in courts against them - contracts.

While it is noted that a contractual agreement cannot compel one to break the law, a contract can exclude any statutory limitations between two private entities - statutes are not law. Furthermore, I believe the fundamental failure in the majority of "patriot" approaches to dealing with the federal and state "governments" is the fact they are not really government - they are private corporations. Corp US was established by the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. The various states incorporated throughout the 1960s. These corporate entities adopted the corresponding names in their organization the same as the originial jurisdiction government organization - even adopting "constitutions", which are no different than any other corporate charter. These charters provide "rights" to their employees - US citizens. What has been given can easily be taken away.

The "courts" we are dealing with are not original jurisdiction government courts, but administrative courts of Corp US. The questions needing to be answered are what contractual obligations has one made themselves liable to Corp US and its subsidiaries. I am beginning to understand why the "oath" of office is a non-issue for "judges" and other Corp US employees.

[truth4all]

[quote=Judge Roy Bean]Bovine Scatology. The vast majority of people trying this stuff in court get into financial trouble, start searching on the Internet to "learn" and try things to get out of paying.

The creditor's law firms deal with it routinely, and effectively.

Wrong again. That IS the entire topic when you are sued for the debt. And demanding presentment of the original note will get you nowhere. A copy of the agreement you signed is sufficient, particularly if you used the card and made payments.




Judge Roy won't tell you this either. LOOK UP "BEST EVIDENCE RULES" It should say something similar to this.

"If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it
was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more
satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with
distrust."

you might also find it says something like this in your "evidence rules".

In determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or
facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider,
among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his
testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his
willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the
case."

[iamfreeru2]

[quote=truth4all]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Bovine Scatology. The vast majority of people trying this stuff in court get into financial trouble, start searching on the Internet to "learn" and try things to get out of paying.

The creditor's law firms deal with it routinely, and effectively.

Wrong again. That IS the entire topic when you are sued for the debt. And demanding presentment of the original note will get you nowhere. A copy of the agreement you signed is sufficient, particularly if you used the card and made payments.




Judge Roy won't tell you this either. LOOK UP "BEST EVIDENCE RULES" It should say something similar to this.

"If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it
was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more
satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with
distrust."

you might also find it says something like this in your "evidence rules".

In determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or
facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider,
among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his
testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his
willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the
case."

Thanks again for another egg. I have looked this up for Florida and has some very good info to use. I will be including this in my court filings indeed. I will answer JRBs post to me tomorrow. It is getting rather late for me so I will call it a night. Take care and again thank you for the nuggets.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Because copies and affidavits demonstrating the chain of note ownership are considered sufficient in almost all cases unless there is a claim of forgery or fraudulent conveyance. For larger operations, it's far less costly to let the original documents rot away in some storage facility and live with the copies that can be produced off the computers at will when a case comses up than to send someone out there and have them dig through what may be a mis-labelled box on the wrong shelf.

You seem to think people here would believe that the banksters and CCC do not produce originals simply because it is less costly for them. The truth is they do not produce the originals because as Jerseee said: "I'm talking about fraud and there is fraud when a conversion of the note occurs without the consent of all the parties involved." This is why the original is not produced and the courts have made it very easy for them to not produce the original except for "Best Evidence Rule" here in Florida (thank you truth4all), which I will be using in my case to compel Discover to bring forth the alleged original signed agreement. There is not only genuine question raised as to authenticity of the original, but also conversion and no copy will suffice. We shall see what Discover does in the discovery process.

No. Copies and affidavits are accepted as evidence, and in CC cases, copies (including computer generated ones) of the signed agreement suffice.

See my answer above.

What they're really perpetrating is their horribly one-sided agreements that let them change the rules as they go along. The biggest problem is people keep signing themselves into these things without actually understanding them, then they don't even bother to make photocopies or scan them for their own records.

People do not make copies because they have believed the legitimacy of the transaction. This is also reason to have the original rather than a copy. Copy can hide lies whereas the originals reveal them.

They aren't afraid. See the above - the copies and affidavits are acceptable evidence.

Again see my answer to your answer above

Again, they aren't afraid. The alleged "account general ledger" is a fiction of your own creation. What can be acquired in discovery are the records of the account showing the history of the transactions. If your records vary from their's, the court can rely on expert testimony for clarification of facts it doesn't discern on its own.

Another lie. Another name for this tool is a T-accounting and any first year accountant knows what this is. Even the federal reserve uses this tool. In one of the FRB's own publications the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in section regarding “Where Do Bank Reserves Come From?” (Quote: The basic working tool is the "T" account, which provides a simple means of tracing, step by step, the effects of these transactions on both the asset and liability sides of bank balance sheets. Changes in asset items are entered on the left half of the "T" and changes in liabilities on the right half. For any one transaction, of course, there must be at least two entries in order to maintain the equality of assets and liabilities.) I think you are again trying to obfuscate and distort the real truth here JRB.

Neither of those things if entered into evidence by themselves will be sufficient to raise the claim of fraud in the vast majority of cases. You will have to find deliberately manipulated transactions and prove they are more than simple errors (there is something called the bona fide error defense).

We shall see how all this play out and if they claim this "bona fide error defense."

IF that is the case, they should be making you an offer to settle before the case before it even gets to court. Something tells me this isn't the whole story, though - perhaps you're implying "Discover" isn't who you signed the agreement with so they don't have standing from which to sue? Or do you just not recall ever signing an agreement?

I signed no agreement.

You're demonstrating some confusion. Things that are requested of Discover will either be objected to or produced. If objected to, the court will make a ruling on relevance and determine if the item(s) in question will be used as evidence. Nothing they produce or don't produce in evidentiary discovery has anything to do with a court's jurisdiction.

Other courts have allowed discovery of Corporate Charters and the like and if Discover must produce theirs and it will show their lack of standing to sue, which in such case the court will not have jurisdiction due to Discover's llack of standing. If Discover lacks standing, please tell me how the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Again, just to clarify - it will not show the court anything - it will ALLEGE that Discover's charter is lacking, and your motion and argument will be ruled on only after they have the opportunity to respond.

In the discovery process I have the right to request any document that will show bad faith on the part of Discover Bank. If their charter shows a lack of standing, that is very relevent to the case against me. That charter, if submitted, and I have no reason to believe it will not be, will show the court Discover's lack of standing in this matter

Agreed. I would suggest you attend some similar cases in person to see the ebb and flow and get a feel for how the evidentiary/objection/argument/ruling practice moves in the particular judge's court.

I agree and have already done so and will do again.

[chapka]

Originally Posted by truth4all

Judge Roy won't tell you this either. LOOK UP "BEST EVIDENCE RULES" It should say something similar to this.

"If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it
was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more
satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with
distrust."

That's not exactly what the best evidence rule says, actually. The FRE version only applies to written documents. It says that the original documents must be produced unless the original is not available. But there are plenty of exceptions.

Whatever document is produced, if it's admitted into evidence, I'd be surprised if a state rule of evidence said that it should be "viewed with distrust." Either it's admissible or it's not.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by chapka

That's not exactly what the best evidence rule says, actually. The FRE version only applies to written documents. It says that the original documents must be produced unless the original is not available. But there are plenty of exceptions.

Whatever document is produced, if it's admitted into evidence, I'd be surprised if a state rule of evidence said that it should be "viewed with distrust." Either it's admissible or it's not.

The Florida Rules of Evidence do not say it like that, but it may as well say it like that. It pretty much means the same thing the way I read it and have read other pleadings regarding the Fla.R.E.

[truth4all]

Originally Posted by chapka

That's not exactly what the best evidence rule says, actually. The FRE version only applies to written documents. It says that the original documents must be produced unless the original is not available. But there are plenty of exceptions.

Whatever document is produced, if it's admitted into evidence, I'd be surprised if a state rule of evidence said that it should be "viewed with distrust." Either it's admissible or it's not.

LOl.. sorry!
Actually, I just cut and pasted those rules straight from the Code of Civil Procedure. So if you disagree, go tell the courts they got it wrong.

[iamfreeru2]

I received the above motion from the plaintiff and had a good laugh. I am in the process of answering it and will have the answer out by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. It is funny they are requesting the court for protection from annoyance, oppression, and undue burden created by my discovery requests. What about the annoyance, oppression, and burden they have caused me? This is just an attempt to avoid providing discovery that they lack standing and have no case and is a showing of bad faith on their part. How else are we to get to the truth unless discovery is allowed. It has nothing to do with annoyance, oppression, and/or undue burden. It is a matter of, if they are compelled to produce the discovery requests they know that have no clainm or case, period. It will be up to the judge to grant or deny their motion. I expect him to deny.

By the way it has the usual crap about the discovery requests are of the from and substance of material found on the internet. This is totally irrelevent to the discovery requests made and is just an obfuscation of the real issues. LOL

[truth4all]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

I received the above motion from the plaintiff and had a good laugh. I am in the process of answering it and will have the answer out by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. It is funny they are requesting the court for protection from annoyance, oppression, and undue burden created by my discovery requests. What about the annoyance, oppression, and burden they have caused me? This is just an attempt to avoid providing discovery that they lack standing and have no case and is a showing of bad faith on their part. How else are we to get to the truth unless discovery is allowed. It has nothing to do with annoyance, oppression, and/or undue burden. It is a matter of, if they are compelled to produce the discovery requests they know that have no clainm or case, period. It will be up to the judge to grant or deny their motion. I expect him to deny.

By the way it has the usual crap about the discovery requests are of the from and substance of material found on the internet. This is totally irrelevent to the discovery requests made and is just an obfuscation of the real issues. LOL

LOL shame on you. ..harassing third party debt collectors !
Protective Order ? You madman !
asking all of those "dangerous" questions via "paper" in Discovery !!
LOL

By the way if the attorney FOR Plaintiff is answering Discovery, INSTEAD of Plaintiff, you might want to check your CCP rules.
He has most likely waived all client/attorney work privledges he would want to claim, in doing so.
Press onward. They probably have to pay for each piece of paper they request from the creditor.

[Jerseee]

Now that's funny!

Here's an idea, since copies are allowed (just for argument sake) get a copy of the opposing party's sginature and create a letter stating that their company committed fraud upon you and cut and paste the letter up with the copied signature. Make it look like a letter sent to you and just present it (do not admit it into evidence!!!) and show the court. Let's see what they say about that.

I bet you'd get a subpoena to produce the original letter! hahahahahahaha

Not legal advice--but a damn good idea to make your point that the FRE rule 1003. is there for a reason.

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

I received the above motion from the plaintiff and had a good laugh. I am in the process of answering it and will have the answer out by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. It is funny they are requesting the court for protection from annoyance, oppression, and undue burden created by my discovery requests. What about the annoyance, oppression, and burden they have caused me? This is just an attempt to avoid providing discovery that they lack standing and have no case and is a showing of bad faith on their part. How else are we to get to the truth unless discovery is allowed. It has nothing to do with annoyance, oppression, and/or undue burden. It is a matter of, if they are compelled to produce the discovery requests they know that have no clainm or case, period. It will be up to the judge to grant or deny their motion. I expect him to deny.

By the way it has the usual crap about the discovery requests are of the from and substance of material found on the internet. This is totally irrelevent to the discovery requests made and is just an obfuscation of the real issues. LOL