GTHMHNL

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About GTHMHNL

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Hawaii

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I meant, 1st and 2nd pre-trial conference. I believe if it's the 1st, it's meant only to enter a plea. It doesn't allow for motions, etc.
  2. I'm not sure how that works, to push for MTC A at your 2nd pre-trial conference, if it's as straightforward as that. Something to consider, there's a 14 calendar day period prior to your trial date where you're supposed to submit the MTC A papers to the court clerk for processing and approval, and a verified (court stamped) copy sent to Dang. If you're already within this timeframe, you'd have to file a Motion to Shorten Time with the MTC A with reasonable explanation of why you're eligible for the shortened time, which allows paperwork submission to be recognized and accepted by the court prior to your scheduled trial short of the 14 day deadline. If time is on your side, I suppose you can go straight to MTC A - i'm not really sure. The Motion(s) require forms 1DC38 (MTCA) and 1DC15 (MTST) available on http://courts.state.hi.us. I generated my own MTCA form based on a comfortable format, but filled out the online forms as the cover and listed the generated form as an attachment. This(ese) forms need to be taken to the Alakea St courthouse, 3rd floor, 'Legal Document' window. They're not very helpful, so don't expect too much from them. If you have questions, sign up on the customer service section list that's situated before legal documents. They're pretty helpful, but with fundamental info, no legal or other specifics. On the same floor there's also the 'Access to Justice' desk (legal aid) on MWF 9-1. They're not especially helpful strategically, but they can confirm whether your forms are filled out right. One of the docs that helped me a lot is : http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/court_rules/rules/hrcp.pdf HI rules of civil procedure. That specifies timelines, basic court and other formalities. It seems like a daunting read but it's really not. Anyhow, hope this helps!
  3. Hey AM - I just went through something similar, though with Chase / Midland, so possibly different terms. What worked for me was finding a relevant card member agreement that happened to have an Arbitration and Arbitration Survival clause. This is what ultimately helped steer the case to a dismissal with prejudice ('with' is what you want though instinctively it's easy to feel 'without' might be better - 'with' means the dismissal is finite. 'without' means they have the option to reopen the case at another time). It sounds like you're still to appear at your 1st pre-trial conference. If so, depending on how you plan to proceed with your case you'd appear before the judge to declare that you 'deny' the charges (if that's what you're planning on doing, based on what kind of evidence you're able to collect). It's likely the Dang attorney won't even be there - they weren't with my 1st appearance. This is a painless step, mainly to get your plea into court records. After this happens, there is a LOT of research you'll need to do, all based on how you're planning to pursue your case. You'll receive a date for your next pre-trial appearance during which you'll start directing the course of your case. I was assigned a 2 month period, asked for 3 which was granted (I wanted the additional time to prep and study). The initial court system was a lot less complicated than i'd imagined - I was psyching myself out for the worst (which I suppose wasn't a bad thing, kept me on my toes). The 2nd appearance was a little disorienting because Dang presented me with the option to declare ID theft. At the time, in that frame of mind, it sounded like a good idea and might allow me to pursue without going much further in court - the Dang attorney pointed out that we had a mutual friend and implied that he was suggesting this as a sort of favor. Naturally, in the end it was BS but at the time I didn't know what to think. So I agreed to receive the ID theft paperwork then proceed from there. Once I did receive, it was a series of docs that required very detailed (notarized) information beyond what I think they already had. This is when I started to look deeply into the card member agreement terms, and begin aggressive research into a Motion to Compel Arbitration closely following the advice of the guys here. This is a very intensive process, and if you read the thread that relates to my situation, it shows step-by-step procedures and considerations. I generated a lot of court documents that both were filed, and just prepared to address other possible outcomes. But reading and re-reading through the related threads here was what really kept me on track. I'll keep aware of this thread, and will try to help how I can. Hopefully, and depending on your card member agreement terms, you'll be able to get through this with the same success I did!
  4. Oh, so he was the first to speak, initially providing a quick history about offering an ID theft option that I declined, then they offered dismissal without prejudice that I followed with faxing them a dismissal with prejudice. He didn't mention the MTC A that likely pushed them into dismissal at all. He then said they didn't receive my DWP prior to yesterday's appearance because I only faxed it on Friday (I actually sent Thursday night) and he didn't see it until yesterday morning (even though the fax cover I made for it was marked in 200pt letters at the top "URGENT - TIME SENSITIVE"). He did not mention that I didn't receive their DWOP until the Wednesday before, only had a day to process and respond. I didn't want to come off petty so didn't correct him - he's in front of the judge every day so whatever - he can have his quibble. I got a DWP - i'll take it.
  5. Thanks! No, no contact before being called before the judge - he came in late and sat in an area that kept us separated. No eye contact either, at all, even when we were before the judge. The only time he looked at me was when we both walked out of the courtroom at the same time when he gave me a bit of a sneer... so much for our mutual friend connection - hah.
  6. Dismissed WITH Prejudice!! It wasn't without a condition - the attorney asked for it to be entered as 'without finding on merit' which I agreed to assuming it was more for their records vs effect on me because the way I saw it, dismissed with prejudice is dismissed with prejudice. From there the judge told me I was free of the following scheduled appearance, and free to leave. No problem. Could not have gotten here without all your help, especially @CCRP626. Thank you all very much!
  7. They've been pretty 'no contact other than PO Box and general phone', no biz card or email - I think they're the only JDB firm here so likely get a lot of not-too-pleasant contact - it's an accessible community. So no email, but i'm going to fax them tonight, ask that they confirm by EOD tomorrow otherwise i'll see them in court come Monday.
  8. I've already completed a new form (same as the one they sent) and changed 'without' to 'with'. 3 copies for them, judge and me. I'm half tempted to just send them a signed copy of the modified version to see if they don't notice and sign themselves out of my life. (but I understand your instructions above and see it's the best path to go)...
  9. Update - in the mail today was a Stipulation For Dismissal without Prejudice from Dang's office! Not exactly what I was hoping for but close - it's a dismissal. It highlights a line i'm supposed to sign, and i'm assuming to send back to Dang's office since they included a return envelope postage paid. It says i'm still to show up to court next Monday at the later appearance time - the original time - not the the half hour earlier to hear whether the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. I think i'm supposed to be pretty happy about this. Do I sign and mail back to Dang, then show up for court to accept this action? Do I not sign/send and show up for court to ask the judge to change to Dismissal WITH Prejudice considering the plaintiff cannot prove their chain of title and validation of the debt, even through pursuit via CFPB and they still couldn't produce the proof? I want to be thrilled but still cautious until this is all wrapped up, ideally with a dismissal with prejudice neatly behind me...
  10. Understood. I'm just exploring opportunities that, yes, I thought might affect the course of this case and am realizing that my best tactic is to keep focused on the upcoming appearance for the time being.
  11. I asked the CFPB guy about this, he said to file a new complaint that might have carryover information but addresses a different topic - in my instance, not responding with the information originally requested - there are no time specifications... Or at least, that's how I understood it.
  12. Yesterday's Midland CFPB response has been bothering me, I called CFPB again today to ask about how they get away with not responding to the points in my dispute to their 1st response. He said CFPB doesn't get involved in mediation as much as provide a venue for consumer/business interaction, and consultation on what could be done. He suggested I file a new complaint about not finding their yesterday's response adequate because it did not address specifics details in the dispute. He said there is no time frame for it to be done in or around, but just make sure it doesn't appear as a duplicate. Here's my draft: 'This is regarding case 16065-002500, and is not a duplicate complaint. Midland Funding LLC responded on 7/7/2016 to a previously disputed response submit on 6/15/2016 detailed in the case file, and was disputed on 6/27/2016 specifying missing information that is lawfully required of them to validate the alleged debt. Instead, they replied 7/7/2016 with a 'Closed with Explanation' response which pertains to this response at large, vs handling my case with them specifically, and without the option to further dispute. Within it, they specify, "Please see the attached response for a full description of Midland's investigative results" however, the response they are referring to is the one originally sent 6/27/2016, and did not address any of the outstanding issues. The outstanding issues by CFPB ORDER File No. 201 -CFPB-0022 that remain unaddressed include: "A chronological listing of the names of all prior owners of the Debt and the date of each transfer of ownership of the Debt, beginning v.rith the name of the Creditor at the time of Charge-off; m. A certified or otherwise properly authenticated copy of each bill of sale or other document evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt at the time of Charge-off to each successive owner, including Encore. Each of the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt must include a specific reference to the particular Debt being collected upon; and IV. Any one of the following:: 1. A document signed by the Consumer evidencing the opening of the account forming the basis for the Debt; or 2 . Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting a purchase, payment, or other actual use of the account by the Consumer." This CFPB Order specifies: PROHIBITION AGAINST THREATENING OR FILING COLLECTION LAWSUITS WITHOUT AN INTENT TO PROVE THE DEBT. Midland Funding LLC has not complied to this ruling and are in violation of CFPB and FTC rules.' Any thoughts on this?
  13. Nope - no response to this. They still have some time to respond. It may not be critical information for the MTC A hearing, and if I don't get it within 30 days from the complaint, i'll pursue again through CFPB. I'll start to organize these docs as well.
  14. No - it was the exact same response letter they sent the 1st time. The CFPB woman said by using the same one means that they're probably sticking to their initial claims, whether I find it incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise.
  15. Just got off the phone with CFPB. As you specified, they explained that Midland's response to my last dispute, with the 'Closed with Explanation' comment, is indeed to specify that Midland has closed this correspondence with CFPB, not with me. So the lawsuit remains. Very misleading... I'm headed to the post office to mail these docs to Dang withOUT the copy of the CFPB response. It was just too good to be true...