bowhuntersd

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bowhuntersd

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    south dakota
  1. @BV80 As far as the evidence I have is towards the credibility of these two shysters. making them look untrust worthy Well as far as the atty. thing, yea, there's an opinion to it from the court and they were hammered. As far as the provisions I'm still try to find case law and have been unsuccessful thus far.
  2. @shellieh98 On this last 2 posts I posted, What would be your input on this if I may ask? I'm in the same boat.
  3. @BV80 This is the Atty who was hit hard and actually set a precedent in Montana in the 9th circuit. her name is Lisa! http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/man-sues-collector-s-lawyers-wins-lawsuit/article_42c240ae-ac06-5e8d-9df3-925ffd8e3bb3.html
  4. @BV80 make any such represenations in the name of Wells Fargo. The signer of this "assignment of installment contract" is this person by the name of Kazich, scroll down to the bottom of the page and read what people have said about it. I took pictures of it and I' m submitting them as evidence, but also the atty who was hit hard in Montana is there atty. I'm also submitting evidence as to her character and there untrusting credibility. http://debt-suit-litigation-in-texas.blogspot.com/2013/10/jody-d-jenkins-debt-collection-attorney.html
  5. @BV80 the conveyances of such in this agreement specifically state there not suppose to do it, the affidavit I got from autovest did just that. Everything that being provided to me is a$$backwords from what this agreement states. But also this agreement states it is governed by the state of Delaware and there SOL is 3 years.
  6. I'm in the same boat as well and if your still going through it, take a look at this and try to get it entered as a judicial notice. Anybody want to chime in on this tactic? http://dalie.org/contracts/
  7. Yes, pocket service is legal and were going through the motions as if we were going to court, I answered appropriatly I saw fit to answer to none of there business (not in those terms). Here's where it's at and trust me your gonna flip! This assignment that was provided to me is fraudulent! the signature on the bottom is from the collection agency out in michigan who can't legally sign this assignment, not only that, there's no certification attached, no notarized signatureas as well as no date and the person who signed it doesn't work for this company. See link and scroll down and see the comments. This is exactly what I'm talking about, http://debt-suit-litigation-in-texas.blogspot.com/2013/10/jody-d-jenkins-debt-collection-attorney.html This is exactly what this assignment of installment states that I got. "On Nov 30, 2012, WFFI, a iowa corporation (assignor), located at 800 walnut street, des moines, iowa 50319-36363, hereby assigns the installment contract, including any security interests, described above for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which as been acknowledged by all parties, to auto vest, LLC an michigam limited liability company. (assignee), located at 26261 Evergreen Road, Suite 390, SouthField Michigan 48076." Signed Darren Kazich I had answered her interogs and production of docs. I didn't have any and was only relieing on what she had provided. She also wanted evidence to my defense. Well of course I discovered this above info. a couple days ago and I found alot. I printed it all out and sent them to her. http://dbainternational.org/events/past-events/11-attendees.asp (scroll down to Kazich and see who he's associated with) Here he is again: http://www.joesdata.com/executive/Darren_Kazich_665303480.html and another: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/darren-kazich/1a/583/3ab So I'm sending all this to her and basically telling her I disputing this document she provided to me (my defense). I also found the contract between WFFI and Auto it says there is no expressed warrantee as to the collectbles (my terminalogy) I mentioned everything in this interog and pro.docx what I will be seeking if she was to actually file it into court. simply stated is he doesn't work for wells fargo and has no authority to sign such a doc. and if he does provide me proof. OK, so now I am able to ask for admissions in a separate packet, according to the procedure. Even though it hasn't been filed in court according to the clerk of court. http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=15-6-36(A) here's where it specifically states this is unsecured. © BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ALL OR A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE RECEIVABLES MAY BE NON-PERFORMING; BUYER FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN ANY RECEIVABLES DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO WHICH THE RESPECTIVE OBLIGOR PURPORTS TO GRANT A SECURITY INTEREST .IN A VEHICLE OR OTHER COLLATERAL, THE RECElVABLES BEING PURCHASED BY BUYER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ARE BEING SOLD AS UNSECURED RECEIVABLES. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer acknowledges and agrees that the Purchase Price for the Receivables reflects the quality of the assets (including any faults, defects or other adverse matters that may be associated with the Receivables or underlying Contracts) and the "as is" nature of the sale. Buyer further acknowledges and agrees that it has been fully informed as to the nature of the Receivables and has agreed to purchase them as contemplated by this Agreement. So I want to send admissions and this is word for word my cover letter. To Rodenburg law firm C/O Lisa Lauinger In the matter of Autovest LLC/ Doug Anderson Please answer the questions pursuant to 15-6-36(a) that I have for the reasons of my defense but also the rules of civil procedure Chap. 15-6 The reason for this is you initiated an action upon me that I believe are not to be truthful in nature. Mainly the Assignment of Installment contract that shows discrepancies. You have 30 days to answer these question. If after 30 days they are not answered they will be admitted. Where defendant will file a motion to the court to seek summary judgement of dissmissal upon commencement of this action. If however a default judgement is entered against defendant (Doug Anderson) without his acknowledgement. Defendant (Doug Anderson) will seek action under section SDCL 18-4-26 subject to the penalty of SDCL 18-4-25. I look forward to working with you to resolve this issue Thank you Signed Dated All questions in the admissions are related to this document. But could you verify if I can send this to her. remember I was served. just want to make sure. definition of commenced is here! http://legis.sd.gov/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=15-2-30&Type=Statute requests for admissions is here. http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=15-6-36(A) Here's where I'm ultimatly going with this!! this debtor is making IT LOUD AND CLEAR TO THEM! http://legis.sd.gov/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=57A-9-406%20&Type=Statute I hope you don't tell me this is legal or this laptop is going across the room! I appreciate you concern and help!! Thanks
  8. went to the clerk of courts yesterday, nothing was ever filed. both small claims and civil court. Nothing and I repeat nothings is there. clerk looked 3 times not there!!
  9. @debtzapper @Wins the Battle @BV80 @Clydesmom @shellieh98 I wanted everyone to know that's been there for me, I got played by SD laws, procedure is, is to try to negotiate these kinds of things and legal type of dox can be used. Funny thing is that I didn't notice it until yesterday and that's this S&C on the bottom of the complaint it states, "this communication is from a debt collector"! all you guys know this isn't gonna be allowed on the real S&C! I didn't until now! this was all a negotiation tool! BV, I took that big step back! The way I see it is a tool to allow debt collector to get away with things here ingood ole SD. Any how I got my pOOp in a grOOp and regrOOped, Bv I recieved the last one this week and the other two others within the last month and a half, There heading on the top of the collection notices are in BIG & BOLD letters from an atty's office. They can't do that! But the way I see it is SD probably would allow it, anyhow! I'll worry aboutthat later. I cleared my head and figured it out with your guys help so now I'm gonna reel this JDB in and make her pay buy filing this with all just a dismissal motion as I get that chance and objecting to everything who can't give personal knowledge of everything ! I'm kind of getting excited about this ordeal cause they mucked up and they think I don't know it! As I said before this collector state that it was purchased and then assigned, here's the best way somebody else put it and I'll give full credit to this person. this is plainly explained. I have this evidence against them! http://rebuildcreditscores.com/assignment-of-debt-vs-purchase-of-debt-what-is-the-difference/ this is NOW gonna be so much fun with them that I'm LMAO! contradiction to the MAX! challenge will be happenin! BTW, I'll keep you guys updated so we can pass this info along to remain powerful against unscrupulous debt colletors, but it was you guys who calmed me down to get my head together! THANKS A MILLION! Will keep updating!! Thanks Friends!!
  10. Well then what the hell is the FDCPA good for here in south Dakota then? This burns my a$$ to no end!
  11. That's comforting, however this JDB just screwed me cause they say the sent out the notice. I never received nothing, my GF never saw nothing. They waited for the right timing to send me this S&C cause they knew that I couldn't challenge it. That validation notice has to be only sent out by mail, not showing that it was actually received.. HMMM! The only thing I know I can get them on now is the citation I posted earlier about the BIG AND BOLD HEADING on the top of there collection notices, which, now reminds me to go back and take another look at cause there was other stipulations this court said they have to do!!
  12. well this is all comforting! all my 4 days of researching just went to s**t! not that this was the only thing I found but, just sayin!!
  13. I think what I should be doing is figuring out how to shield what assets I have, I'm allowed $4000.00 and don't even have that. I have no income except my VA disability and I KNOW they can't take that!! Not garnishable!
  14. OK, thanks for discouraging news! now you've really on my parade!!
  15. @BV80 I just came from the clerks office and nothing has been filed with them, No they do not have to file before serving! What there doing and my understanding is there just gathering all info before bringing it. I'll answer everything she asks with an objection if appropriate! Not according to this opinion letter from the FTC!! Not doubting it but getting confused! http://educationcenter2000.com/debt_collectors/FTC%20opinion%20letter%20on%20validation%20Section%20809(a)%20of%20the%20FDCPA.htm I received nothing from them, I have a GF who sees my mail on a day to day basis and she's seen nothing come from this place!! Yes I sent out both notices of validation, second one was insufficient verification. Actually templates came from this site!! I'm beginning to understand a little better now!!