• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About InProSe

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

447 profile views
  1. Rest easy, BV80, it's gonna take much more than you and your JDB associates to mock the SOF. It prima facie crushes the JDB here and that threatens you...why? Are you too used to teaching others to swim out in the deep "void" waters in which to drown? Why didn't you know about and teach the easy hit as we are the only state to have one controlling when all credit agreements are not "void". It's pure fraud for you to say that the JDB can find a credit card agreement that is "within" the SOF and just throw it in the action at any time. You completely miss the whole point of the SOF: it addresses "oral" agreement issues one can raise, as well as parole evidence to muddy the waters...which is what you are suggesting a JDB can do to comply with SOF. Nice try. But you failed. To be "within" the SOF, only the OC can own and then assign the valid CCA to the JDB. To do otherwise, as you suggest, is prima facie fraud...and you know it.
  2. No...every credit agreement is void in Utah...they are all "within" the language elements of the SOF which you fear.
  3. BV80. I'm calling you out. Dispute the formual. I figured it out. It was not easy. You are going to have to disprove it. This formula will crush Johnson Mark. Why are they no longer using SB 281 in Tooele County? Is it because of some truth here you revealed that scared them off? They are a madly, huge successful law firm here in Utah. Why have they not crushed me? They wrote and passed the legislation and got hundreds and hundreds of rubber-stamped Motions for Employment Records. Why the withdral of their motion. Why are the attorneys there leaving? It's not because of you, that's for sure. It's because I've been able to legally man handle them with truth and law. NOw...dispute the formula.
  4. Okay, BV80, tell all the JDB you represent and are protecting this: 25-5-4(f); 25-5-4: "Every credit agreement" Utah..."void"..."
  5. Dispute the formula: jurisdiction equals CCA assignment from OC. Show your true stripes.
  6. I don't buy into the "protecting" Utah angle. If you were, you would have had done so. The court is not going to prosecute all legal issues raised independent of the action itself. Was fraud an issue before the court? I will soon be before the Attorney General to "protect" Utah. Where will you be BV80? If you feel that I am the bad guy here to protect Utah from then you are prima facie in bed with the JDB and you, my friend, have just been outed. Admit who you really are and how you are protecting the JDB. Do it. I've helped Utah big time despite OZ curtain you and others hide behind here. You could care less about Utah. You are fearful we are about to crush JDB's and that worries you. Admit it.
  7. No, the SOF plainly states that all credit agreement in Utah are "void". It then goes on to establish all the express, mandated elements that have to present before a court will vest with jusrisdiction to hear the matter. All packaged seeds in Utah are not "germinated". True. But if x,y, and z are present, then the seed will grow. All matter on the moon is "non-organic". True. But if we discover the elements of X, y, and z, then there's life on it. What you are attempting to convey then, when discussing say a 4-yr statute of limitations issue, is that it's misleading to say four years means four years; that a 5-yr. old claim merits discussion. All time-barred claims are prima facie barred from being enforced. How is this breath-holding alrming? CIC is always pushing that issue with gusto as an affrimative defense to defeat the JDB. Are we misleading the poor JDB then?
  8. True, but the SOF specifically states with plain language that receipt must be before or at the time of use. No need in Haring to hit each element "within" the SOF. It's misleading to suggest that because Haring did not completely exhaust the elements of SOF juxtaposed to the material facts of the case at hand.the case could have easily gone in any other credible way. JDB used fraud to aver that a years old CCA that came from God only knows where, certainly not the OC as required, was "within" the SOF and therefore binding on Haring. JDB's basis of the cause of action against Haring was an legal impossibility for them...the OC did not own and then assign the valid CCA to JDB. That's why they lost and always will lose. That's why they never, and I mean never, file a cause of action the basis of which is the mandated SOF-compliant CCA. Who are you trying to protect?
  9. "How else were they supposed to refer to it?" That's the problem here in Utah. The JDB controls the language in debt collections because they lack the only averment that is "within" the SOF: the valid credit card agreement assigned to them from the OC. That document is not part of the "final field data" they purchase from the OC's pooled charge-off accounts. They can pay more and get their hands on billing statements, but that's about it. The OC/JDB has the burden to prove its case in a court with jusrisdiction....not just shout they have the "Account". In the real legal debt collectin world that will someday be here in Utah, saying that word will have the relevance of shouting repeatedly in the court hallway that they have stomach cramps and need to use the toilet. Who cares. They have to shout while running up the court house steps, and going throught the metal detectors, and dashing to the clerks desk to file an action against a Utah credit agreement consumer that they have the "credit card agreement" or face arrest and jail time for engaging in prima facie fraud. We are sick and tired of their shenanigans and side-stepping the SOF. Issue settled.
  10. Thank you BV80 for your resonse. Points well taken. The only point I have for pro se litigants in Utah is that the OC has to assign the valid, account controlling "credit card agreement" that is SOF-compliant and which is the basis of the action being taken against the defendant. That is the only road that leads to a court with proper jurisdiction to hear the matter, otherwise the "credit card agreement" remains a nullity or "void"...and to sue on that premise alone is pure fraud here in Utah.
  11. All "credit agreements" in Utah are statutorily "void"...which means all courts in Utah lack jurisdiction to hear debt collecton claims, no matter what you refer the "cause of action" to be based on: Account, Stated Account, Account Stated,Breach of Credit Account, Breach of Account, Breach of Contract, Breach of Account Stated, et cetera. It does not matter what the JDB insists on calling their cause of action. Maintaing an action on a "void" credit agreement creates "void judgments", which is exactly what JDB's do here in Utah. At least until they tortured the wrong "least sophisticated" credit agreement consumer here in Tooele County with enforcement of a prima facie "void" credit card agreement. The purpose of the Statute of Frauds, as I have come to discover, is to absolutely prevent JDB's from filing and maintaining debt collection actions on heretofore "void" credit card agreements. The only legal event that gives "birth" to a court with jurisdiction to hear their debt obligation claims is a law suit, the basis of which is a valid credit card agreement, filed "within" Utah's Statute of Frauds. Period. The only thing JDB's here are known for is claiming a birth right "outside" the SOF. That is prima facie lunacy. What matters, though, is the fact that all alleged credit card agreements with their associated debt obligations remain "void" unless and until the Original Creditor with ownership of the alleged credit card agreement can, (1) aver when you received the valid, written "credit card agreement" and, (2) aver that you used the credit card "after" you received the "credit card agreement", and (3) provide a valid, true and correct copy of the credit card agreement to the JDB. That's a tall order for a JDB who is clueless to all the preliminary negotiations that the parties to the alleged "credit card agreement" engaged in. I know that when I first heard of Capitol One's offer was when an actual credit card, with my name on it, showed up in my mailbox! The disclosure note said that I was but a phone call away from "activating" the card, which is what I did. There was no valid credit card agreement associated with the gift credit card, nor did I ever get one even after I used the credit (about $120). Any credible attempt to "enforce" the debt obligaton was a legal impossibility. I fought the JDB "Complaint" tooth and nail. Over came their MSJ and wound up in trial only to hear, and I will never forget, the dirt-bag Johnson Mark attorney say to the judge, "The defendant applied for a credit card...." I was stunned. I kept thinking: this can't be happening to me...he's not stating the facts, and he's clueless to how I came in possession of the card. I had no clue of the statutory teeth "within" the SOF. It would have been an affirmative defense that would have carried the water and launched me into the victory circle! A few moments later, a judgment was entered against me for $1,500 plus. I was absolutely devastated and demoralized. But I made a vow to myself to figure out how to legally crush Johnson Mark. The affirmative defense of the SOF and how to present/argue it is key. I've also managed to stop Johnson Mark from using their "brain child" employment gathering Frankenstein SB 281. That feat and victory has cost them heretofore multi-thousands of dollars and in the end, millions of dollars! I hope their action on a "void" credit agreement debt obligation ($120) was worth it. So, Utah, think and absord the fact that only valid SOF-compliant "credit card agreements" can create the jurisdiction necessary for JDB to have a judgment entered in against you. Focus on this fact: the legal action against you must be a valid credit card agreement, one which discloses all the essential terms and conditions of the proposed credit agreement, the basis and foundation of the legal action being maintained against you. The legal authority for the OC shoes the JDB must step into before suing you is found in MBNA AMERICA BANK v. Goodman. Make the JDB measure up to the legal standard set therein in order to bring a fully SOF-compliant credit card debt obligation suit against you. That case gave rise to a court with proper jurisdiction. Realize, too, that North Star Capital Acquisitions v. Haring is key to seeing just how "outside" the SOF the JDB is when it comes to over coming your primary affirmative defense. Know these two case to near memory. JDB must come at you Goodman-style...the open SOF gate and door to the court room. Then there's Haring: JDB have to side-step and avoid the front gate SOF and try to sneak around it by having you enamored and mesmerized with their bull horn "the Account". No. It's the valid credit card agreement that unlocks the court room. Just keep'em locked out of it where they belong...desperately flailing away while drowning in the deep, dark, still "void" waters they swim in. Good luck...truth will set us free. Truth of the credit card's the's the alpha and's the beginning and the's the one and only...when it's all said and done, it's the only piece of evidence standing in the eyes of the SOF/law or it's deemed "void" and fraudulent to prosecute other wise. The formula that governs the laws of the debt collection court room universe is: J = CCAa (Jurisdiction equals credit card agreement assignment). There's not a JDB in Utah who can prove otherwise. This legal formula destroys their darkness faster than the speed of light. Their dark proposition is a kin to the "singularity" of Black Holes...not even light can emerge from its gravitatioal force...not even valid judgments can emerge from "void" credit card agreements they fraudulently maintain an actin on. Fear not, my friends and fellow citizens...even my fellow credit agreement friends. My attorney general complaint is near completion. I called the State's Debt Collection Division where JDB attorney from Johnson Mark now works, Jacob Franklin, to file a formal complaint against him. I was advised who in that department to send it to...and I was given an insiders name within the AG to personally send my compalint to. I hope this advantage gives me the traction necessary to start down that long and winding road to shut down all JDB activity in this state. It's the least I can do to make it worth the $120 credit obligation I racked up. I think I will get my money's worth. Least I hope so. I will not rest until I defeat them all. Utah, I promise!
  12. may want to review Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLD v. Migliore filed: October 24, 2013. This appeals case is helpful on all fronts: First, footnote 2 says, "We note that Migliore agruged below that a credit contract is unenforceable under Utah's statute of frauds without evidence of a written contract between the parties. However, he has abandoned this argument on appeal." This is a word to the wise as Migliore should have stuck with and known how to argue that the JDB breach of contract claim is only valid here in Utah if the OC owns then properly assigns a valid, true and correct copy of the CCA-- that the alleged debtor received before, or at the time, the credit card was used (assent to the material terms and conditions, key contract formation element)-- the basis of which is the cause of action . This statutorily mandated requirement gives birth to standing to sue, credible/legitimate cause of action, valid assignment, and prima facie "jurisdiction" to hear the breach of credit card agreement debt obligation (the "Account"). Otherwise, JDB is engaging in prima facie fraud before the court which is statutorily prohibited (see SOF) as the action is being maintained on a "void" credit agreement. Secondly, Migliore challenges the lower court's denial of his motion to amend MSJ. He moved to strike 2 affidavits using "rule 59 motion": one from the the JDB employee, and the other from the OC. In defeating his motin, the court applied Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e), and Martin v. Lauder, 2010 UT App 216, P 14, 239 P.3d 519; and A Good Brick Mason, 2010 UT App 145U, para. 3; see also id. and Utah R. Evid.602 ("Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony.") and Superior Receivable Servs. v. Pett, 2008 UT App 225, P 10, 191 P.3d 31. & n.2. and Weststar Exploration Co. v. Cochrane Res., Inc., 2008 UT App 169U, paras. 7-8 and Webster v. Sill, 675 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Utah 1983)..."However, our supreme court has observed that, unlike a deponent, an affiant is not subject to cross-examination. and Utah R. Evid. 803(6)(D) and Utah R. Evid.803(6) Footnote: Migliore also argues that the affidavit regarding the sale of accounts is insufficient under rule 56(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and rule 803 (6) of the Utah Rules of Evidence to provide foundatin for admission of any business records. However, no business records were attached to the affidavit as a rule 56 (e) affidavit. And the district court received the affidavit regarding the sale of the accounts as one of the business records attached to the Sage affidavit, not as a rule 56 (e) affidavit. PERHAPS THERE'S A LAWYER IN THE HOUSE TO ASSESS THE ABOVE CITES? Also worth considering juxtaposed SOF: "PRA's complaint asserts a breach of contract claim based on the "ASSIGNMENT OF THE ACCOUNT TO PRA BY WELLS FARGO BANK". "The elements of a prima facie case for breach of contract are (1) a CONTRACT, (2) performance by the party seeking recovery, (3) breach of the CONTRACT by the other party, and (4) damages. Bair v. Axiom Design. Because Migliore failed to file responsive affidavits or other admissible evidence, the facts are undisputed." In paragraph 12, the court mentions "account" ten times and four times in P. 13. The court made it clear that the elephant in the room was "the Account" but no where does the case mention CCA...that Wells Fargo Bank assigned the...the...the...the...the...the...(should I be "within" the SOF?)...that Wells Fargo Bank assigned the "Credit Card Agreement" to Portfolio JDB. Remembrer: control the language and win; focus on the mandate to be "within" the smitten by "the Account" and lose! JDB's heretofore have controlled the language and have won as a result. We need to turn the table on them. Show me the properly laid foundation for the Affiant/affidavit to introduce the SOF-compliant "credit card agreement" received from the OC. There's no standing to sue without it.
  13. Okay, Utah, the unpublished district court case North Star Capital Acquisitions v. Haring, is the road map for how our affirmative, statutory defense of the Statute of Frauds can eclipse a JDB's courtrooms' ability to get a bench ruling in their favor. I'm familiar with that JDB attorney and he's no slouch, especially with "attorney fees" to be decided. This guy gave it all a JDB could, even finding somewhere (remember JDB has no clue of the contract formation which is key) an alleged case-related credit card agreement (although it was only 2 years "after" Haring quit using the card, and allegedly "assented" to its binding and enforceable terms and conditions...LOL...a fraudulent assertion clearly "outside" the statute), thereby creating a legal contract. So, do as Haring did and make them come into court with a SOF-compliant credit card's your best weapon...and their Achilles heel...that's why they never sue on one or disclose one unless Pro Se is legally talented enough to pry one out of them. Also, is there a "verified", credible affiant/affidavit from OC to establish its validity? Preserve all your issues of material fact for appeal. Okay, in MBNA v. Goodman, we are all privileged to witness how an OC slam-dunks a favorable debt collection ruling in court (appeals level, anyway) based on its cause of action being a SOF-compliant claim arising from the breach of the "verified", valid, credible credit card agreement as evidenced by the "Account" data. The court quoted the SOF and went through MBNA's compliance of each element "within" the statute as OC filed its suit on breach of credit card agreement (emphasis self added) : "The single issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by dismissing MBNA's complaint against Goodman." ..... "On March 23, 2005, MBNA filed a complaint against Goodman alleging that Goodman had entered into a credit agreement (the Agreement) with MBNA and had defaulted under the Agreement by failing to make payments on his credit card"...[Account]..."balance of $16,611.32." "3. [The] Defendant entered into a Credit Agreement with the Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of the Credit Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." "4. The Defendant has defaulted on the obligation under the Credit Agreement in Exhibit 'A.'" "5. The amount due and owing to the Plaintiff is $16,611.32, plus accrued interest of...." "The elements of a breach of contract claim are '(1) a contract, (2) performance by the party seeking recovery, (3) breach of the contract by the other party, and (4) damages''. Bair v. Axiom Design, L.L.C., 2001 UT 20, p 14, 20 P.3d 388. Thus, to have stated a claim for breach of contract, MBNA's claim must have alleged sufficient facts, which we view as true, to satisfy each element." "P7 We conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in dismissing MBNA's claim. By alleging that there is a contract, that Goodman breached the contract by failing to make his credit card payments, and that there are damages, including the unpaid balance and interest, MBNA's complaint states a claim for breach of contract." "P8 The Utah Statute of Frauds expressly provides that credit agreements like the one AT ISSUE here are enforceable without the signature of the debtor: A...." The court goes on to spell out the elements of the SOF credit card "no signature" exception to the statute. "In this case, Goodman was provided with a copy of the Agreement, the Agreement contained a provision that acceptance of the Agreement's terms occurred through the use of the credit card, and Goodman undisputedly used the credit account. Therefore, MBNA's complaint should not have been dismissed even if the Agreement did not contain Goodman's signature." Okay, Utah, there you have it. Haring's approach to defending the fact she did not owe the debt is warranted and is a proven winning strategy...she got awarded attorney fees, too! Junk Debt Buyers are a poor imitation of standing to sue, assignment, ownership of verified evidence unlike Original Creditors, as demonstrated in MBNA. Compare and contrast. We must be legally skilled enough to force/require JDB to step into the shoes of MBNA when they come into Utah courts...if they can...otherwise it's "fraud" and the original credit card agreement remains as they all are in Utah..."void"!
  14. Thx BV80 for probing and pushing..."the serious accusation" based upon the whole premise of what the Statute of "Frauds" is there to ensure will not happen if debt collection actions are completely "within" the statute....JDB's whose sole purpose is to take absent "void" credit agreements and run them through their "Account" lawsuit mills "outside" the statute on the backs of the "least sophisticated" credit agreement consumer without filing the SOF-compliant credit agreement that proves "assent" in the formation of the contract process in their Disclosures, are guilty of "prima facie fraud" and make millions in the process with "unclean hands"! Let me get the appeals case out of MBNA v. Goodman (OC action to collect a credit card debt obligation with the "credit card agreement" as the cause of their action) that, like Haring, turns on legal analysis of the Statute of Frauds juxtapose the formation of the contract facts. BRB.
  15. Thx BV80. I just want to make clear for Utah pro se litigants fighting a JDB debt collection law suit, that the JDB can state a cause of action on breach of Contract or Account, and print the word "Account" a thousand times on each document and within all its Motion paperwork, and attach to their complaint all their printout billing documents labeled and argued to be an "Account", and affiants/affidavits swearing to their "Account" documents/evidence, billing statements, et cetera...a typical JDB suit...but without a verified, written, attached, Statute of Frauds-compliant "credit agreement" with verified proof that the Utah defendant got a true and correct copy of the stuffer "credit card agreement" prior to using card....account....contract....whatever you want to call it....the "credit agreement" remains statutorily "void" and the JDB is statutorily barred from maintaining "an action" (on the valid, verified credit card agreement that is the basis of the action or "cause" of the action) on a void credit agreement...for to do otherwise is fraud. Make the JDB come out of the deep blue waters it wants you to drown in by being all caught up in "Account"...rather, force them to come on shore (meaning court room) and filet them as they 1) have no clue of the formation of the contract (assent to a written, valid, SOF-compliant "credit card agreement"); 2) they do not own a true and correct copy of the credit card agreement as statutorily mandated that is suppose to underscore their cause of matter what they choose to call it.