Jump to content

S.S.D.D.

Members
  • Posts

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by S.S.D.D.

  1. Thank you. I just wanted to be sure since they can’t sue me in another state that the same didn’t hold true for them.
  2. Thank you for responding, Clydesmom. I really just want to know if I can keep this in my state.
  3. Several things. I was just wondering if I can sue in my state?
  4. Can I sue PRA in my states district court or does it have to be the state where their offices are?
  5. @BV80 Thank you. I doubt they would renew it. It’s bothersome how the justice system works here. It seems if you’re in criminal court you have more rights. It really bugs me that I couldn’t have a chance against MCM’s jerk of a lawyer. He’s really a piece of work.
  6. @BV80 10 years, I'm not sure if they can be renewed.
  7. @BV80 I guess they'll get their judgment and I'll have it on my credit report for 10 years. They won't be able to collect any money from me at least but I'm out my JAMS money.
  8. @BV80 In MN both parties pay a filing fee of $322 and $103 more for each motion. Right now they want me to pay $528 for my filing fee, motion in opposition of MSJ and MTC arbs. I was denied the fee waiver even though I don’t have a job and simply do not have the money to pay the fees.
  9. @BV80 First I want to thank you for all of your help, I’m truly grateful. I guess I did all of this for nothing though. I called the court administrator to ask if I could get the hearing rescheduled, so I would have time to get my blood pressure under control, she said no, “court is stressful for everyone”. I told her that’s not what I was referring to, that I have seriously high blood pressure and have already suffered a stroke because of it. She said there was nothing she could do about it. Then she said, “I see you haven’t paid your filling fee yet, so it really doesn’t matter if you showed up or not you wouldn’t be able to participate in the hearing anyway,if you want to use our justice system you have to pay for it” I asked if she could at least tell the judge I called and she said no. I thanked her for her compassion and help and told her to have a nice day. When I got off the phone my BP was 167/112!
  10. @BV80 I don't think I can attack the affidavit any more than I have in post #51 above. I know I need case law, that's why I asked if anyone could help me with that, I'll do my best to find some. Thank you.
  11. @BV80 Thank you so much. How does my opposition sound?
  12. @BV80 Here’s my opposition to their MSJ. I haven’t included all of the “see this or that” yet and where it does say “see Defendant’s Objection To Affidavit and Evidence” I’ll maybe have to change what I’m calling it. I still have to add the conclusion but I wanted to get this posted tonight so you could look at it. Also if anyone wants to help me find MN case law I would be extremely grateful. I’m having some serious health issues right now and need help. Thank you. INTRODUCTION Defendant, appearing Pro Se for its Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment and as grounds thereto states the following: FACTS 1. Plaintiff served Defendant a Summons and Complaint on June 16, 2014. Defendant served Answer and Discovery Requests to Plaintiff on June 30, 2014. 2. Plaintiff filed their complaint with the court on August 4, 2014. 3. Defendant attempted to file her Answer and other initial papers with the court, along with a payment for filing fees of $75.00 on August 10, 2014. The court returned the documents with a discrepancy notice for not paying the correct amount of $322.00. Defendant mistakenly thought the case was filed in Small Claims Court due to the amount of the claim. 4. Defendant sent a letter, via certified mail, to Plaintiff's attorney on September 6, 2014 electing arbitration with JAMS and requesting dismissal of this case. 5. Defendant sent a letter to Judge XXXXXX stating she was electing private arbitration per the terms of the Credit Card Agreement on September 8, 2014. The letter was returned with a discrepancy notice that said the Defendant had to pay the $322.00 filing fee in order to send the Judge a letter. 6. Defendant sent Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney JAMS official “Demand For Arbitration Before JAMS” packet, via certified mail, on September 19, 2014. 7. In accordance with JAMS rules upon receipt of the Certified Mail Return Receipt’s from Plaintiff and Plaintiff‘s attorney, Defendant sent the Demand For JAMS to the JAMS Resolution Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota along with the necessary proofs of service on September 29, 2014, via certified mail. 8. JAMS Resolution Center is awaiting a response and payment from Plaintiff in accordance with JAMS Rules and GE Money Banks Credit Card Agreement. 9. Plaintiff filed for a Motion For Summary Judgment on October 2, 2019. 10. Defendant filed an Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis along with a Motion To Compel Arbitration on October 13, 2014. The court denied the In Forma Pauperis Petition. ARGUMENT Plaintiff ’s cause of action for this case and Motion For Summary Judgment are based on claims that are unsupported by credible and admissible evidence and/or no evidence. (see Defendant’s Objection To Affidavit and Evidence). Plaintiff has not met the summary judgment standard as there are no facts admitted or clearly proven and there is a genuine issue as to material facts. (see Defendant’s Objection To Affidavit and Evidence). I. Plaintiff is not entitled to alleged balance remaining on account in question. Plaintiff alleges, “GE Money Bank sent accurate invoices and/or statements of account of the transactions on the account. The invoices and/or statements of account were received by Defendant, accepted and retained by Defendant without an unresolved dispute being made within a reasonable period of time. In furtherance of the charges made and/or cash advances taken, a full, just and true account was made and stated between GE Money Bank and Defendant. An unpaid balance of $1,063.53, remains due to Plaintiff from Defendant over and above all sums received from Defendant and for which Defendant is entitled to credit”. These are Plaintiff’s opinions, Plaintiff has offered absolutely no evidence to substantiate these allegations. Furthermore Plaintiff appears to be speaking on behalf of GE Money Bank, which is hearsay. Plaintiff’s statements regarding Defendant are a complete fabrication. Regarding Plaintiff’s statements about arbitration and filing Defendant’s answer, please see Defendant’s FACTS in this memorandum and Defendant’s Motion To Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff alleges, “The issuance of the credit account to Defendant was an offer and the contract became binding when the Defendant retained the credit account and made use of it, thereby agreeing to the terms of the written agreement. Thus these facts show mutual assent in the form of a valid offer by GE Money Bank and a valid acceptance by Defendant”. Plaintiff refers to his opinions as facts, the fact is Plaintiff has offered absolutely no evidence to substantiate these allegations. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not provided the Court or the Defendant a copy of the written agreement that is referred to. Plaintiff fails to make a factual argument as to consideration. Plaintiff has offered no admissible evidence. II. Plaintiff fails to make a factual argument for account stated. a. Plaintiff can not prove a prior relationship between Defendant and GE Money Bank, relying solely on Midland’s own inadmissible “Field Data” sheet. b. Plaintiff fails to prove mutual assent between the parties as to the correct balance of the alleged account relying on an uncertified, unsubstantiated and unsworn copy of a single statement with a $0.00 balance that Defendant has never seen before commencement of this action. c. Plaintiff can not prove a promise by the Defendant to pay the balance of the alleged account. Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that GE Money Bank sent any statements to Defendant or that Defendant received and retained any alleged statements. Defendant could not have objected to or disputed something that did not occur. Plaintiff fails to provide any detailed monthly billing statements, proof that said statements were sent to Defendant or evidence that Defendant received and retained the alleged statements. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence showing charges made, fees, interest, credits and payments on the alleged account. III. Plaintiff has no evidence they are the assignee of the alleged account. Minnesota law requires an intent to transfer must be manifested. Plaintiff states, “Here the language of assignment clearly shows an intent by GE Money Bank to transfer all interest in Defendant’s account. Additionally GE Money Bank has relinquished all control over the Defendant’s delinquent account and it’s proceeds to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff, by standing in the shoes of the assignor via the valid assignment, has standing to sue on the Defendant’s unpaid debt”. Plaintiff’s statements are a falsehood. Plaintiff’s evidence is an irrelevant Bill Of Sale from GE Money Bank to Midland funding for unknown accounts. Bill Of Sale does not state Defendants name or alleged account number, it bears no connection between GE Money Bank, Midland Funding, LLC and Defendant. Plaintiff has no evidence of being the assignee of the alleged account and therefore lacks standing to sue Defendant in this case. IV. Defendant has commenced Arbitration via JAMS. Plaintiff is disingenuous in stating Defendant has not commenced arbitration. Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney the official Demand For JAMS on September 19, 2014 via Certified Mail Return Receipt, 10 days before they signed their Motion for Summary Judgment with Plaintiff’s statement that Defendant had not commenced arbitration. JAMS rules require both parties to pay their Case Management Fee prior to receiving a case number. Defendant has made her payment, JAMS has been waiting for Plaintiff to make theirs. All of the necessary information is readily available at the JAMS website. Plaintiff states they intend to breach the GE Money Bank contract unless the court orders them to comply. Furthermore Plaintiff states Defendant’s dispute is based on financial hardship which is an utter lie and personally offensive. V. Statute of Limitations Plaintiff states, “In her answer to the complaint, Defendant alleges the statute of limitations expired on this debt and that Utah law should be enforced”. That is untrue, in Defendant’s answer to the complaint it says, “Plaintiff has not provided Defendant documentation to establish the alleged account is within Statute of Limitations for legal action”. Plaintiff included a copy of Defendant’s answer in their Motion for Summary Judgment, the truth is right there. Plaintiff has no admissible evidence establishing the statute of limitations, there is no admissible evidence as to the last payment made on the alleged account. “While respondent is correct that appellant bears the burden of proving his statute-of-limitations defense, we conclude that the district court erred in determining that appellant failed to meet his evidentiary burden for purposes of surviving a summary judgment motion, and erred in relying on respondent's inadmissible affidavit as establishing when a default occurred on the credit card account”. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC v. Schlick, Minn: Court of Appeals 2013
  13. @BV80 Do you think I should put my opposition’s directly on their MSJ in a different color ink? Maybe I should do that with the affidavit and evidence as well. It seems like it would come off making more sense that way. I think It would be easier for the judge if he didn’t have to go back and forth from my papers to theirs. If he allows me to give him my papers that is.
  14. I wonder if there’s any way I could take advantage of the fact I was never given the chance to do discovery before they filed the MSJ? Particularly since they knew what I was going to request because I sent discovery before I realized the new law in MN included when discovery could begin. I sent it prematurely so they never answered.
  15. @BV80 I’m going to write something I can read in court that will be in opposition to the lawyers motion, using the points you’ve given me. I’ll try to have that done tomorrow. I don’t know why but I just thought I would start by going after the affidavit and evidence. My husband is really freaking out about how this is affecting my blood pressure, It’s been extremely high lately, enough for me to up my meds and it’s still too high. I just hope court doesn’t, well you know. Anyway, no bank records. I haven’t had an account in my name in probably 10 years. These are the changes I made. Affidavit of Erin Hale: Hale claims to be a Legal Specialist for Midland Credit Management, servicer of said account on behalf of Plaintiff and claims that her statements are based upon her personal knowledge to pertinent account records. Hale being a Legal Specialist, would not be involved in day to day record keeping during the regular course of business. Her “personal knowledge” would be limited to what she reads on a computer screen. Hale states Plaintiff is the current owner of and/or successor to, the obligation sued upon, and was assigned all the rights, title and interest to the account in question. The only evidence supporting ownership is a Bill Of Sale allegedly between GE Money Bank and Midland Funding, LLC. The Bill Of Sale bears absolutely no connection to me, (my name) Defendant, or the account and/or account number in question. Furthermore, the Bill Of Sale mentions additional documents making up the alleged completed sale. Plaintiff does not provide these documents, a Purchase Agreement and Notification Files (as defined by the Purchase Agreement). The Bill Of Sale also states that the sale was made without recourse which implies there was no warranty made as to the accounts included in the sale. The Bill Of Sale, as a stand alone document, is irrelevant, should not be entered into evidence and stricken from the record. In an attempt to conform her affidavit to the Business Exception of the Hearsay Rule, Hale has basically copy and pasted Minnesota Rules of Evidence 803(6) to her statements regarding MCM business records. Hale does not identify the person with knowledge or for whom they are employed, or how she knows said person has knowledge of the act or event recorded to make the record or data compilation, to transmit information to be included in such record or how she knows it was made at or near the time of the act or event, she provides no evidence that is the bases for her statements. Hale states MCM’s records indicate that said account was charged off with a balance of $1,063.53 but provides no evidence as to how she arrived at that amount, the computation of that amount, what charges and credits were made, by whom, and when. Evidence included is an unidentified, uncertified, and unsworn document with no title, but with the words “Field” and “Field Data” typed at the top of the page that Midland printed allegedly from electronic records provided by GE Money Bank. The “Field Data” sheet can not be taken as fact or entered into evidence and should be stricken from the record. Hale states MCM created it’s business records pertaining to the account in question. Her statement that the account was opened on 01/03/2007 and the final payment made was 06-01-2009 is unsupported by credible and admissible evidence. Her statement is based upon Midland’s "field data sheet" which was prepared for the purpose of litigation. Any document prepared for the purpose of litigation is not admissible under Minnesota Rules of Evidence. Therefore, the sole support for the date she claims as to when the account was opened and the date of last payment is a document that is inadmissible. Minnesota Rules of Evidence 803(6) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation prepared for litigation is not admissible under this exception. Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management’s business records are created and kept for debt collection purposes which includes litigation, therefore their records lead to a lack of trustworthiness and do not fall under Minn. R. Evid. 803(6). Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said Midland Funding, LLC is one of the state's biggest filers of lawsuits, with 15,000 cases in Minnesota alone from 2008 to 2011. Across the country, the debt collector filed 245,000 consumer lawsuits in 2009. Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 56.05 Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. “The affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment merely expressed a conclusion without any evidentiary support that Valentine was insured by plaintiff. The affidavit fails to comply with Rule 56.05, Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a conclusion being without evidentiary support was not sufficient to raise a justiciable issue”. Federal Ins. Co. v. Pratt's Express, 308 Minn. 282, 283-84, 241 N.W.2d 488, 489 (1976). See also Peterson v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 280 Minn. 482, 160 N.W.2d 541 (1968)). - Affidavit of Erin Hale should not be entered into evidence and stricken from the record. The rest is the same as the one above. Thank you!
  16. @BV80 Thank you so much. I was having such trouble thinking about how to word things. It’s funny you used the word “connect”, I emailed a copy to my daughter asking her if it sounded like I was “connecting the dots” in an understandable way. Since this is an opposition to summary judgment, albeit verbal since I can’t file any motions, I’ll certainly include the cite you mention. Hopefully the judge doesn’t make me stand there reading everything and allows me to hand him a copy. Should I rewrite the whole thing or just change wording in the appropriate places? Again, Thank you so much!
  17. @BV80 No regular monthly statements. The only statement is from charge off. The only doc that shows any and all dates is the field data sheet.
  18. @BV80 No, it really doesn't refer to any specific documents. I changed parts and added parts, I hope it’s o.k.I didn’t mean to write a novel. Now I have to start on the portions that the lawyer wrote in his motion. 1. Affidavit of Erin Hale: a.) Hale claims to be a Legal Specialist for Midland Credit Management, servicer ofsaid account on behalf of Plaintiff and claims that her statements are based upon her personalknowledge to pertinent account records. Hale offers no further characterization of what theaccount records are or what they completely entail. Hale being a Legal Specialist, would notbe involved in day to day record keeping during the regular course of business.(Section One (1) of Erin Hale Affidavit) b.) Hale states Plaintiff is the current owner of and/or successor to, the obligation suedupon, and was assigned all the rights, title and interest to the account in question. Hale doesnot explain how she came to believe this. (Section One (1) of Erin Hale Affidavit) c.) Hale states she is familiar with and trained on the manner and method by which MCMcreates and maintains it’s business records pertaining to said account, but does not elaborateon what the manner and method’s are or the record keeping process, nor does she mentionanything about the accuracy of these records. (Section Two (2) of Erin Hale Affidavit) d.) In an attempt to conform her affidavit to the Business Exception of the Hearsay Rule,Hale has basically copy and pasted Minnesota Rules of Evidence 803(6) to her statementsregarding MCM business records. Hale does not identify the person with knowledge or forwhom they are employed, or how she knows said person has knowledge of the act or eventrecorded to make the record or data compilation, to transmit information to be included insuch record or how she knows it was made at or near the time of the act or event or wherethe records came from. Because her knowledge of the facts is limited to what she hasgleaned from her review of unspecified business records, coming from an unidentifiedsource, her affidavit is based entirely upon hearsay. Hale states MCM created it’s businessrecords pertaining to the account in question. (Section Two (2) of Erin Hale Affidavit) e.) Hale states MCM’s records indicate that said account was charged off with a balanceof $1,063.53 but provides no evidence as to the computation of that amount, what chargesand credits were made, by whom, and when. Evidence included is a “Field Data” sheet thatMidland printed from electronic records allegedly provided by GE Money Bank. Absent a sworn affidavit from GE Money Bank as to the authenticity, validity, and accuracy of the “Field Data” sheet it can not be taken as fact or entered into evidence and should be stricken from the record. (Section Three (3) of Erin Hale Affidavit) f.) Hale states Plaintiff purchased and was assigned the account in question. Theevidence supporting ownership is a Bill Of Sale allegedly between GE Money Bank andMidland Funding, LLC. The Bill Of Sale bears absolutely no connection to me,(my name)Defendant, or the account and/or account number in question. Furthermore, the Bill OfSale mentions additional documents making up the alleged completed sale. Plaintiff doesnot provide these documents, a Purchase Agreement and Notification Files (as definedby the Purchase Agreement). The Bill Of Sale also states that the sale was made withoutrecourse which implies there was no warranty made as to the accounts included in the sale.The Bill Of Sale, as a stand alone document, is irrelevant and should not be entered into evidence and stricken from the record. (Section Three (3) of Erin Hale Affidavit) g.) Hale states the final payment on the account in question was 06-01-2009 butoffers no tangible evidence to support that claim. (Section Four (4) of Erin Hale Affidavit) h.) Hale reiterates the account in question was sold to Midland Funding, LLC butoffers no tangible evidence to support that claim. (Section Five (5) of Erin Hale Affidavit) Minnesota Rules of Evidence 803(6) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilationprepared for litigation is not admissible under this exception. Midland Funding, LLC andMidland Credit Management’s business records are created and kept for debt collectionpurposes which includes litigation, therefore their records lead to a lack oftrustworthiness and do not fall under Minn. R. Evid. 803(6).See d.) above. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said Midland Funding, LLC is one of the state'sbiggest filers of lawsuits, with 15,000 cases in Minnesota alone from 2008 to 2011. Acrossthe country, the debt collector filed 245,000 consumer lawsuits in 2009. - Affidavit of Erin Hale should not be entered into evidence and stricken from the record.Erin Hale is not now nor ever was employed by GE Money Bank, according to herLinkeden Business Profile. Erin Hale can not testify on behalf of GE Money Bank asto the validity, authenticity, or accuracy of any records MCM has received from them. - The unidentified, uncertified, and unsworn document with no title, but with the words “Field” and “Field Data” typed at the top of the page should not be entered into evidence and stricken from the record.See e.) above. - Bill Of Sale is irrelevant and should not be entered into evidence and stricken from the record.See f.) above. In addition to Hales meritless statements, without live testimony from affiant Erin Hale,we can not be certain without any doubt that her affidavit was not “robo signed”, whichis a true and valid concern as evidenced by the following lawsuits. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson obtained a Consent Judgment from MidlandFunding, LLC, one of the country’s largest debt buyers and which has offices inSt. Cloud, MN, to settle a lawsuit she filed against the company for filing unreliable“robo-signed” affidavits in collections lawsuits and sometimes targeting the wrong peoplefor payment of old bills that it purchased from credit card companies and banks for pennieson the dollar. “Several Midland employees admitted in sworn testimony to signing up to 400affidavits per day, either without reading them, without personal knowledge of their contents,and/or without verifying the accuracy of the information contained in them.This lawsuit was about respect for the legal system. In its rush to quickly collect old debtsthat it purchased for just a few pennies on the dollar, the company ignored legal requirementsdesigned to protect the rights of an individual in court,” said Attorney General Swanson.http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/PressRelease/121212DebtBuyers.asp “It is undisputed that Defendants Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Managementfiled thousands of false affidavits in their collection suits throughout Texas. Three MidlandCredit employees have testified in depositions that during their employment, they signed300 to 400 form affidavits per day at their offices in Minnesota, that they did little to nothing toreview the contents of their affidavits before signing, that they did not review any documentationregarding the account before signing, that they did not review any exhibits before signing, andthat they did not sign the affidavits before a notary”.State Of Texas v. Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, INC., and Encore Capital Group, INC. “In a landmark ruling, this Court became the first in the country to hold that the practiceof "robo-signing" affidavits in debt collection actions violates the FDCPA. The Court foundthat Midland generated affidavits for law firms to use in debt-collection actions by means ofa computer system. "Specialists" in Midland's litigation support department would sign between200 and 400 of these automatically-generated affidavits per day. While the affidavit stated thatthe statements therein were based on the signer's personal knowledge, deposition testimonyrevealed that Midland's "specialists" who signed the affidavits did not have personal knowledgeof the accounts at issue.”Brent v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Dist. Court, ND Ohio 2011 Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management may have violated the Fair DebtCollection Protection Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S. Code § 1692e and MN Statute 332.37 (12)and (20) by attempting to collect a debt with a false and misleading affidavit; Section 1692eprovides that "A debt collector, as defined by 15 U.S. Code § 1692a, may not use any false,deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of anydebt." Section 1692f prohibits the use of "unfair or unconscionable means to collect orattempt to collect any debt." Section 1692k of the statute provides for a remedy of eitheractual damages or strict liability, which allows consumers to recover statutory damagesfor violations of the act without proving actual damages suffered.Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592 (6th Cir.2009); FDCPA 1692k. Minnesota Court of Appeals Caution: Although Rule 803(6) should be liberally construedto advance the goals of justice, the court of appeals has cautioned judges NOT tocavalierly admit business records into evidence without a showing of proper foundation.MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE February 12, 2014 If the document is prepared in part for business purposes but with an eye toward litigationthe court must decide if the interest in litigation sufficiently detracted from thetrustworthiness of the report to preclude its admission.Simon, 662 N.W.2d 155 (Minn.App.2003) (1989 Supreme Court Advisory Comment).
  19. @BV80 There’s only one statement from GE, the final charge off. I’ll let the judge decide on the affidavit, that’s just the first piece of evidenceI need to object to. That was the best way I could come up with to “attack” it.
  20. All of Midlands records. They buy debts to collect money with a constant eye toward litigation to collect the money.
  21. This is what I have in objection to their affidavit. I sure hope the judge lets me give him a copy. It will be tough reading all of this. 1. Affidavit of Erin Hale: a.) Hale claims to be a Legal Specialist for Midland Credit Management, servicer ofsaid account on behalf of Plaintiff and claims that her statements are based upon herpersonal knowledge to pertinent account records. Hale offers no further characterizationof what the account records are or what they completely entail.Hale being a Legal Specialist, would not be involved in day to day record keeping duringthe regular course of business. b.) Hale states Plaintiff is the current owner of and/or successor to, the obligation suedupon, and was assigned all the rights, title and interest to the account in question. Hale doesnot explain how she came to believe this. c.) Hale states she is familiar with and trained on the manner and method by whichMCM creates and maintains it’s business records pertaining to said account, but doesnot elaborate on what the manner and method’s are or the record keeping process,nor does she mention anything about the accuracy of these records. d.) In an attempt to conform her affidavit to the Business Exception of the Hearsay Rule,Hale has basically cut and pasted Minnesota Rules of Evidence 803(6) to her statementsregarding GE Money Banks records. She does not identify the person with knowledge fromGE Money Bank, or how she knows said person has knowledge of the act or event recordedto make the record or data compilation, to transmit information to be included in such recordor how she knows it was made at or near the time of the act or event. Erin Hale is not norever was employed by GE Money Bank, according to her Linkeden Business Profile.Erin Hale can not testify on behalf of GE Money Bank as to the authenticity or accuracy ofany records MCM has received from them. Minnesota Rules of Evidence 803(6) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation prepared for litigation is not admissible under this exception.The sheer nature of their business indicates that MCM and/or Midland Funding, LLC hasalways got an eye toward litigation.Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said Midland Funding, LLC is one of the state'sbiggest filers of lawsuits, with 15,000 cases in Minnesota alone from 2008 to 2011.Across the country, the debt collector filed 245,000 consumer lawsuits in 2009. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson obtained a Consent Judgment with MidlandFunding, LLC, one of the country’s largest debt buyers and which has offices in St. Cloud,MN to settle a lawsuit she filed against the company for filing unreliable “robo-signed”affidavits in collections lawsuits and sometimes targeting the wrong people for payment ofold bills that it purchased from credit card companies and banks for pennies on the dollar.“This lawsuit was about respect for the legal system. In its rush to quickly collect old debtsthat it purchased for just a few pennies on the dollar, the company ignored legal requirementsdesigned to protect the rights of an individual in court,” said Attorney General Swanson. Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management’s business records indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Minnesota Court of Appeals Caution: Although Rule 803(6) should be liberally construed toadvance the goals of justice, the court of appeals has cautioned judges NOT to cavalierlyadmit business records into evidence without a showing of proper foundation.MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE February 12, 2014 Documents prepared solely for litigation purposes do not qualify under this exception.Minn. R. Evid. 803(6). If the document is prepared in part for business purposes but with an eye toward litigationthe court must decide if the interest in litigation sufficiently detracted from the trustworthinessof the report to preclude its admission. Simon, 662 N.W.2d 155 (Minn.App.2003) (1989 Supreme Court Advisory Comment). Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114, 63 S. Ct. 477, 481 (1943) (report containing trainengineer's account of accident inadmissible because primary use of report was forlitigation, not railroading);
  22. If your girlfriend is so anxious to see justice served and not have her wages garnished, why isn’t she the one on here trying to get advice and learn?
  23. @debtzapper Thanks. I picked up a binder with color coded dividers to help make it quicker to find things. I’ve gotten some ideas from laundryqueen’s thread. And then got good and scared reading sadinca’s thread. I really want to sit in on some trials but that is highly unlikely that I would be able to. MN does have videos on line of hearings so I can watch those. I hope the judge gives me a chance to talk since I haven’t actually filed anything. My husband doesn’t want me to pursue this any further, and really my credit report is already in pretty bad shape that this wouldn’t make much difference, but I have to say I’ve grown a hatred for these people that you wouldn’t believe, particularly their lawyer. He’s nothing but a lying SOB. I’ve beaten him before without ever stepping foot in court and it wasn’t just a dismissal but w/prejudice. He’s pissed and found my weak spot, lack of funds. I’m sure he doesn’t expect me to show up on the 31st. I’ll be back with questions. Again thanks for everyones help.
  24. It turns out I’m going to have to orally argue in court. If the judge allows it, that is. I had filed for a fee waiver before that wasn’t granted, I appealed it giving them more information and again it wasn’t granted. There’s a section on the application for a reduction in fees that I thought I might qualify for but evidently the judge stayed with the “household income must be 125% below the federal poverty level”. The hearing is October 31st, this ought to be freaking fun. Since having a stroke I have trouble getting what’s in my brain to come out my mouth properly. The way I normally handle it is letting the f bomb fly and starting over. I doubt that would go over too well in court. It usually happens when I’m nervous, pissed, or overly tired. I wonder if court will cause any of those. I’ll have to have everything organized in a binder for reference.
  25. @BV80 AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL D. JOHNSONIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(This part is at the top with all of the court case information, same place as whereyou would put Complaint or Motion and such. It looks like all court docs). Michael D. Johnson, being first sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. That he is one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. 2. That Plaintiff served Defendant with the Summons and Complaint on June 16, 2014.Defendant responded with an Answer on or around June 26, 2014, a copy of which is attached hereto. Then it’s signed and notarized.
×
×
  • Create New...