debt collector or attorney they would be more likely to settle out of
court than take it all the way to a full blown trial. But that is also
true in almost any other type of federal case but to claim there would
never be a record of it is dead wrong. The case(s) will always be on
Pacer for all to see. The actual terms of settlement would not be
there however because of confidentiality agreements.
Proving a fraud upon the court is not likely to get any results. In
fact, your complaint is not likely to even get heard.
The fact that a 3rd party debt collector sued in the name of the
original creditor is not a fraud upon the court. In fact, the U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that it is perfectly acceptable for an
assignee to do that. But there is a huge difference between an
assignee and a junk debt buyer. The Supremes said it was OK for an
assignee to sue in the name of the original creditor but said nothing
about junk debt buyers so who knows whether the JDBs were included or
not. Arguments about holders in due course, Parties of true first
interest and all of those types of arguments have traditionally failed
and will most likely always fail in the future. The only notable
exception to that may be in mortgage foreclosure cases. That sceneario
is still unfolding and in fact I may have discovered a new bombshell
to throw into that arena as well as into the credit card cases. Of
course, there are still several other bombshells that will soon be
exploded on the mortgage meltdown battlefield. The $700 billion
bailout will soon prove to have had exactly the opposite effect that
which was intended. It will not improve the stability of the money
markets or the banks but rather will soon trash the entire economic
system and quite possibly on a global scale.
Yes, I do feel that they have an ironclad case against you and I
assure you that any arguments or defenses you raise in any local court
will fail no matter who tells you differently. You can file motions to
vacate arguably void judgments until the sun falls out of the sky and
you will most likely lose every time. On top of that you may well end
up getting sanctioned in some way as a vexatious litigant yet it may
well be that you will have to file a couple of such motions in order
to come up with
new causes of action which you could use to take them to federal
court.
You ask whether or not one should argue the proposition that if they
have no contract they have no case and whether or not that is an
argument that I advocate using. The answer is that yes, that is quite
often a necessary argument but only because one must argue something
or stand mute before the court and take one's lumps which is what is
going to happen no matter what one argues. Sometimes those arguments
do work but the odds are against the defendant no matter what his
defense might be. Plaintiffs have traditionally lied to the courts and
won their cases no matter how preposterous their claims might be. One
must fight against almost unsurmountable odds regardless of the
outcome. This economic meltdown is going to get so bad that people
will be getting sued in ever increasing numbers. If I were to be sued
for a credit card default or anything else I would go in expecting to
lose no matter what I argued or what trick I employed trying to win. I
would lose no matter what I did or said. But I would also have a
carefully prepared federal case against the lawyer. I would have all
of their violations carefully documented. As soon as the debt
collector turned the case to an attorney I would immediately file a
federal case against the debt collector then start going after
violations by the attorney and once the local case was over I would
then file a federal case against the both of them. Both cases would
most likely be settled out of court. I would lose in local court and
win in federal but the only way that can be done is by having a
careful record of their violations they can't argue their way out of
any more than I could in local court. The only realistic reason for
filing motions to vacate is to give them the opportunity to provide me
with fresh causes of action in federal court.
Even if they get a judgment and proceed to garnishment I will then be
able to get more causes of action in the garnishment hearings and
subsequent proceedings. Just because they have a garnishment in place
does not mean they cannot violate. In fact that is a fertile field in
which to generate more violations, more causes of action.
You speak of SOL defenses. Those can be good arguments if they are
actually valid but once they have a judgment in place your SOL
arguments are all down the tubes even though they might turn out to be
your cause of action in federal court. Judges typically won't listen
to SOL arguments unless you can prove when you made your last payment
to the creditor beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Again, at this point in time I have no idea whether you have any
causes of action or not and I am not advocating that you do anything
until you do have. I do not advocate filing rico cases because they
are fraught with many problems and are risky at best. They can be won
but I think only by well experienced attorneys who really know what
they are doing. Certainly not by pro se litigants who have no such
experience. As to motions to vacate void judgments, I'm sure that
thousands have been filed all across the land due to the preachings of
Richard Cornforth and many
of his followers but the record of success has been dismal indeed. It
is likely that less than 1 percent have ever been successful. So
let's forget about what Richard Cornforth or anybody else teaches or
has said and move forward to either finding causes of action or
generating some in the future.
On Oct 13, 4:42 am, Lisa Angle <lisaangle0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well if Richard is your friend your friend also says that when you file a rico case debt collector attornys settle out of court maybe that is why?!
> If they settle out of court there will never be a record of it.
>
> I agree I have no hope unless I can find away to prove fraud upon the court that the debt collector attorneys were not suing for Citibank which is what your whole program is sold on. The problem is I have not been able to find away to prove they bought the debt. Seems like they can lie or hide that well if that is what they are doing.
>
> Consumer attorneys are out their who and they put on their website they are experienced in the FDCPA believe me when they tell me something I will go to the law library and research what they say to make sure they are telling me the truth.
>
> So let me understand this completely what you are saying is that with the information I have provided thusfar you feel they have an iron clad case against me. Now do you think they were suing for Citibank not themselves?
>
> Your pleading for court in new york stated a whole different view point and yet you feel you are going to win!!!! They could not produce a signed contract said I had made the agreement on the phone. Is that not in your pleading NO CONTRACT no case. I have to admit this is all very confusing to be fair to Richard on each of those points in your pleading; standing, no written contract, etc etc has anyone won?????
>
> your right it is starting to go that way going to court doesnt seem like you have a very good chance of winning after they get a judgement..... Unless they serve you imporperly and you can raise th SOL!!!!!!
>
> Thank you
> Lisa
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Creditwrench" group.
To post to this group, send email to creditwrench@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to creditwrench+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/creditwrench?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment