Kablooey

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Kablooey

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Oregon

Recent Profile Visitors

441 profile views
  1. Thanks for the suggestion but this is part of the juvenile criminal codes. I was thinking more along the lines of ORCP 71B which is similar. That is if the order is signed first. If not I can Move to Amend my original MTC. I am currently awaiting Citibank to send me another letter with even more specific language. They are being ridiculously accommodating for a BB. Elizabeth Warren must have them running scared.
  2. Thanks to @CCRP626 for the suggestion. Complaining to the CFPB got me a 2008 Citibank CC agreement with a letter identifying my account by number. Judge ruled downloading wasn't specific enough so don't let them trick you into admitting that. See here and here.
  3. @CCRP626suggestion solved it! I have also started a new thread here so that this important result will be easier to find. I filed a complaint with the CFPB that Citibank refused to talk to me about a sold account and BAM, within 10 days of filing the complaint, I got a letter form Citibank with my name, last 4 of the account number, the Card Agreement, and dates of applicability. Same agreement, btw, that I originally declared, just 3 years older. You guys are geniuses! I wonder if I should only send this to the PA and wait while they continue to try and litigate in the circuit court, digging themselves deeper with FDCPA vialotions... Ah but alas, I have a moral compass, so I guess I'll just beat them fair-and-square. Any suggestions on the best way to introduce this new evidence? I may still be able to get something in front of the judge before she signs the order denying MTC arb. I believe I can file a Motion for Relief from Judgement or Order based on new evidence post-order, but maybe a Motion to Allow Amendment to my MTC arb will motivate the judge to stop violating my civil rights pre-order?
  4. Hi all, Long story short, JDB sues me for breach of contract of an old Citibank CC account. I file MTC Private Contractual Arbitration and Dismiss. In the motion hearing, dirtbag PA argues that the CC agreement I swore applied, doesn't apply because I can't prove which CC agreement is which, blah blah. Judge swears me in, asks me why I believe what I believe, decides not to believe me, then sides with dirtbag PA. Yay justice for the common citizen. See this link for a lively discussion on a motion judge abusing their discretion to first entrap into discussing, and then rule on, the soundness of a witness's sworn testimony to the validity of a Credit Card Agreement. The point of this new thread is so that it is easy to find out that the suggestion that @CCRP626 made to complain to the CFPB WORKED! I complained that Citibank would not talk to me about a sold account and within 10 days of filing the complaint, I got a letter form Citibank with my name, last 4 of the account number, the Card Agreement, and dates of applicability. Same agreement, btw, that I originally declared, just 3 years older.
  5. So you would suggest not seeking any recourse in the current court and going straight for the appeal?
  6. It would appear that "Motions to Reconsider" are explicitly not allowed under OR rules unless the motion was "any statutory motion to modify, set aside, vacate, suppress, or rescind". I am writing it up anyway as I am sure I will be using the same logic for any appeal, but I am not sure if a MTC arb & Dismiss falls under these categories. I am currently looking for definitions of "set aside" and "vacate". Does anyone know if either of those terms commonly encompasses the action of "dismiss" or "stay"? If indeed I am not allowed to do this in OR, surely there is another method of contesting outcome of the hearing? Or do some states/jurisdictions only allow the denial of a motion to be contested with an appeal?
  7. No, when I say they bragged about not having one, we were talking about CC agreements. These are essentially the "contracts" for the CC accounts, right? Yes. So far as part of their initial Request for Admissions, they filed 1 or 2 I think. Later, they sent me 12, presumably the last 12, in response to a DV request I made. Zero, only verbal arguments by the PA. I pointed out twice, on the record, the the PA has not provided any admissible evidence that disputes the validity of sworn witness testimony (mine).
  8. During the MTC hearing, the PA bragged that they don't have a contract and that they have precedent to sue without one. Yes, the judge swore me in and started questioning me about where I got the agreement. I explained my logic (probably not very clearly due to nervousness) as to why I thought the one I downloaded was applicable. I indicated the title of the card (e.g. "Gold Card") and that it was a non-vendor-specific card (e.g. not a Sears card) and that all the non-vendor-specific CFPB published Citibank agreements were the same agreement. The judge seemed focused on the possibility that my card was associated with some other, non-published agreement.
  9. Yeah, I also cited the survivability clause when the PA started yapping about the date. This seemed to shut him up about it. Soon as the judge started focusing on "which" contract applies, he started yapping about that. I am fairly certain that if I said that the contract is valid because the sky is blue, this guy would say, "How do you KNOW the sky is blue... Where did you GET that information!" And what, I'm supposed to say something like, "You haven't provided any admissible evidence to show that the sky is not blue." At what point does everyone snap out of it and realize how ridiculous all of this is? All these card agreements have arb clauses. Its just a common fact!
  10. The alleged date that this occurred is July 2011.
  11. The complaint had the usual... Defendent opened an account, used the card, went in to debt with, blah blah. I admitted it was my account and pretty much denied everything else. I declared the downloaded contract as part of my MTC arb. There is nothing about an "implied contract", nor did it include any documentation. Since then they have sent me a pile of statements that show the "last" year of payments, ending in the beginning of 2012. In the MTC hearing, the PA pretty much bragged about them or the JDB not having the contract, so that at least is on the record.
  12. It is a breach of contract suit. I answered with the MTC arb and Dismiss as well as a formal Answer with the arb clause as an affirmative defense.
  13. It is not clear to me how the statute text (ORS 40.505) or the examples would preclude a CFPB downloaded agreement. Have you found case law on this? It seems like example (d) "Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances." leaves some room for argument.
  14. I think that this is exactly the issue. I should be simple to show precedent that a non-specific (no name or card title in the text) agreement can be used as they are almost all non-specific in this way. But I need to firm up my logic on how it isn't possible that I have downloaded the wrong one, i.e. one without an arb clause. In a Motion to Reconsider (or appeal) is it reasonable to make logic based arguments like: "The 2013 contract for this specific card is exactly the same as the non-specific 2011 contract that I supplied. This 2013 contract is by far the most common (maybe all of them) contract currently furnished by Citibank. Similarly, the the 2011 contract is just as common among those furnished by the FCPB, not only for 2011, but for all subsequent years. To dispute the existence of the arb clause is equivalent to saying my card had an extremely rare contract with no arb clause. This make my belief that the arb clause applies sound and reasonable and it is the Plaintiff's burden to prove that this card is rare or non-standard in some way." I could submit 30 contracts from both sites that all have same arb clause to show that it is standard.
  15. I am assuming she will be signing the MTC order I provided and checking the no box. The PA immediately emailed me after court with another order with some "extra" language in it and asked if we could use that one. He also suggested we could now move on with settlement negotiations and stop "litigating". The first line of my response was "we are not litigating because the court lacks jurisdiction as dictated by the arb clause of the contract" and the second line was "we are not negotiating, and there will be no settlement outside of the proper arb forum". Hopefully that is enough. The only other content of the message was me saying no to his order and the judge could sign the one already filed. I have kept this tone in all of our communications as this toolbag keeps trying to bait me.