Jump to content

Chalmers Johnson

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Chalmers Johnson's Achievements


Member (2/6)



  1. Thanks again for all of you guys' help, particularly @Jimmy E Sorry my responses have been sparse since I won my case, in the interim, I've taken a new job in a new state, and have really just gotten settled in over the last couple of weeks. I look forward to participating further as able. I will say this new job really has me on my toes, but my own odyssey will continue as I can only confirm removal of the alleged debt subject to the dismissal w/ prejudice from Transunion only, in fact it looks like PRA reported this again to Equifax as of the 18th per CreditKarma! For both Experian and Equifax, I ran into trouble trying to submit my online dispute, so it looks like I will have to go the letter or phone call route. I plan to open a new thread as I get moving on this, and will keep my lookout for opportunities to jump in and help others. -C.J.
  2. @Jimmy E The verdict is in... dismissal WITH prejudice!!! In a letter accompanying order, judge cited no genuine material fact in dispute, as, in addition to no document provided with my original signature or assent to be responsible for account, no testimony was provided from OC attesting to accuracy of account! Next step is to dispute this account with CRAs for removal right? Thanks to all of those who helped with the discussion along the way! May this thread be of help to others who are facing similar issues! I will stay involved with this and other threads where I can help as well!
  3. Yep, I looked up the personal responsibility bit later on that evening, and would respond as to Lack of Privity and possibly other things if they put this argument in writing... Also, if they want to dismiss, it needs to be WITH prejudice, as P's attorney admitted they had filed in a county I formerly lived in last year, and already got their free dismissal without prejudice per the Rules...
  4. @Jimmy E Yep we had a trial last Tuesday, with the young associate from the LR law firm. I'm pretty sure you weren't there, unless you were the judge, clerk, bailiff or opposing counsel! Place was empty besides us. Judge was pretty courteous and treated me fairly, listened to my arguments as to hearsay, trustworthiness, etc. Spoke to me about 40% of the time or a bit less talking to me. Judge made a significant point of noting that Plaintiff had no OC affidavit or other testimony when Plaintiff kept trying to point out the affidavits from PRA as good evidence. Judge noted the bill of sale was not even notarized, and contained no personally relevant information. Gave P's attorney a speech about an '85 Cadillac and an unverified bill of sale. We went back and forth as to whether the 2 columns of spreadsheet info provided was an adequate proof or original documentation, I noted that there was no way to identify, link or reference back to the bill of sale. I continued to assert that in light of this, any purported items form the OC were inadmissible hearsay, including a year of statements which showed no actual purchases (just payments). Judge wants a signed contract, they produce the poorly photocopied 2010 generic and I object that, by P's own assertions, my account was opened before 2010 and therefore it fails civil rule 10(d) on multiple counts (even if the unsigned generic is acceptable, it's the wrong one). I brought up the consent order, Plaintiff's counsel argued that it didn't apply to the instant action, said there was no admission. I introduced a copy of the stipulation to the consent order, which the Judge took as an exhibit, and I described the findings made on their debt buying, affidavit and litigation practices. I really couldn't argue SOL, and admitted that I at one time had a C1 card, denied correctness of balance but didn't say it was zero. Judge denied their further pursuit of my records per their 2nd RPoD. Judge was indicating he had enough to rule. Plaintiff's attorney said he'd like to submit a letter brief w/ case law (as to why his documentation was sufficient?). There's a good Arkansas thread on here (hyperlinked earlier in this thread) which discusses hearsay exception which I plan to use to rebut if I need to. I was to able to interject and invoke the Marshall, and Wildwood (as to trustworthiness) cases often. Didn't get to elaborate too much on Cavalry v. Anderson, Danner v. Discover (the 1st one) nor LVNV v. Nardi, but as I noted Judge is already pretty skeptical of their quality of evidence. Plaintiff made an appeal to my personal responsibility or liability. Judge said he'd take it under advisement. Judge gives P's attorney two weeks submit anything else he wants to submit. Dammit, no ruling that day, and I am left unsure and a bit off focus. I did verify with Judge I'd have a chance to respond to what he files. P's attorney asks to be excused, he didn't wait around to chit-chat... so now I am on guard to see what he does but haven't yet taken any offense here... really wish he'd ruled last week and wonder how exactly the ruling will be published (will we have another hearing?) Didn't embarrass myself but still not sure I'm going to win, was ready to get a ruling that day. Thoughts/ feedback welcome as always
  5. Yeah thye were overdue with their response so the MTC only addressed this, not the adequacy of their answers... they answered 22 days after I filed it and sent a response to the MTC a few weeks later saying it was misfiled but moot anyway since they already answered the RPOD, albeit late...
  6. Can Hmmm... @Jimmy E, please see the attached excerpts from my RPOD where P objected. Should I have filed a motion to compel on these objections? Can I bring one with me to the trial date? Of course if the judge is that rough I'm probably sunk in this court...
  7. Yeah, when I dropped of the latest responses discussed immediately above, I asked the lady about whether I'd be effectively be able to oppose any further motions to continue by the plaintiff. Her answer was pretty much no, the judge would likely sign it if he got it. Today, I got a letter from plaintiff's lawyer dated Monday 8/29, saying my recent responses were not acceptable and threatening their own MTC if better answers were not rec'd within 2 weeks. Of course, trial is scheduled for Tuesday (day after holiday). I'm hoping that no further request for continuance is sent. I plan to call at 4:00 pm Friday afternoon (maybe earlier) to get a confirmation as to whether we're on for Tuesday. I'm hoping that we are on and, as you predict @Jimmy E, P's attorney doesn't show. If they don't. do I immediately ask for dismissal with prejudice? If they do, I wonder if they'll ask for further continuance based on the discovery they want better answers to (unlikely?). If they do, I'll object, and argue that this doesn't affect material issues of ownership, and beg for a disposition that day? Hell I'll even admit I probably made payments, they still haven't proven ownership worth a damn, and if the Judge is still gonna rule against me, let's get it on so I can decide whether to appeal. If on Friday it appears that we're on for Tuesday, I'll take my work computer home, go back through everything and prepare an outline with good notes, and mainly come prepared to argue : lack of adequate proof of PRA's ownership, and the hearsay exception to any Cap1 business records is not met, based on the fact they offered no competent testimony as to the reliability, validity or veracity of anything from alleged OC (so I'll object to anything they claim is from OC), no signed agreement, no specific reference to me in the bill of sale, and admit to having no witness planned per their earlier discovery response. I plan to refer to the link to another thread on this site. I mentioned earlier in my thread. I will also study up on this link I found, I really want to get as good references to caselaw as possible: https://issuu.com/bgordy/docs/2014springdocket
  8. Right, so best case scenario is no new continuances are granted (I like your idea about the letter and plan to discuss with Clerk first, that I would like to oppose any future requests) I show up on trial date, they don't, then I ask for a dismissal (with prejudice)? Even a plain dismissal should be with prejudice at this point as they filed against me in my former county of residence last year then dismissed... If they do show I want to get it done. I'll be putting my notes together soon...
  9. Yeah I don't want to push them to provide more, because their weak answers as they stand show they don't have what they need to prove they own a valid debt, so I feel I'm headed the other way, I want my hearing in front of the judge without more delays. All in all, with no OC witnesses nor affidavits authenticating the records they sent to PRA, nothing I ever signed, nor any proof my acct was in the portfolio referenced by their bill of sale, isn't anything they try to introduce from the OC, including their own affidavits, hearsay per the qualified witness standard of the hearsay exception?
  10. Agreed. I was mailed a reference of the motion after the clerk told me about the continuance, but it was never included (only cover letter and certificate). When I respond to their new RPoD today or tomorrow, I am going to ask a clerk if I could see the original to understand what the stated cause was, and then (politely) ask if I will be given an opportunity to oppose any further continuance request. The Rules don't seem to grant me the right to oppose (court's discretion), but I will do my best... Also planning to hold of on the RFA for now since that could be used as an excuse to continue this further... It was to Compel an answer, not more definite statements. I hear you, and specifically requested redacted if needed list of accounts in portfolio as called for in the Consent Order, #119. Would you guys agree at this point it's best not to keep pushing them for better answers because what they provided was weak (see below form earlier post)? Nothing new was included beyond their recent filing. Many boilerplate objections. I figure this helps me, as now they don't have an excuse to keep filing (better or adequate) evidence against me. Honestly feel like their responses put them into more of a corner, as they: Object to as irrelevant my request for adequate chain of title which is very close to the Consent Order requirements from 119c State that they have no witnesses to call. So, with no affidavit ever filed from the OC, I should be able to beat them by objecting to anything from the OC as hersay (vanilla bill of sale, 1 page 2 column printout, 18 months of statements showing no purchases, only payments) as I mentioned, their responses included less than what they filed for trial, so no new nor compelling evidence
  11. Great and thanks for the replies guys! I never saw the motion for continuance until after I was advised of the new court date by the clerk. @Jimmy E you picked a perfect time to check in. As you can see below, Plaintiff is trying to continue Discovery. Do you have a template for an apt RFA I can send them? 1. 15 days on the CFPB complaint was today, They wouldn't hold PRA to an answer because it is already the subject of pending or priorlitigation, so complaint closed with no relief. They said they would forward the info to the Consumer Sentinel, so as far as I know this route is dead. Irritating that I guess no CFPB complaint can address litigation practices by that standard. 2. They filed an opposition to my Request for Judicial Notice. Claimed it wasn't relevant to the case. I'd drafted a version that had my arguments included after citing the Consent Order, but I removed the argumentative language to merely state facts. They want it denied and waive their right to a hearing. Should I send an amended one with the arguments or respond further? I planned to demonstrate how Plaintiff was in violation of the Order at trial. My goal here is just to have the court recognize the Order as a standard to go by. 3. They responded to my MTC for my RPoD. They'd already responded to the discovery per earlier in the thread, so oh well right? 4. They filed a 2nd Interrogatory and RPD. They want info on each and every bank between 2010 and 2011, including: Address Account number Names of all signatories Type of account Open and close dates I think I remember the bank name (since bought out), account long since closed, don't remember account number and don't want my wife's name introduced at all. Can I object to stating her name? RPOD 1: Then they request bank statements, canceled checks and deposit slips on all accounts. I have none of the records they request, so I plan to honestly answer, as I do all questions. RPOD 2: Then, they request I sign and place my SSN# on an "Authorization for Financial Records" where I outright give them a blanket authorization, no time restriction for "any of my personal or business financial records" upon request to Plaintiff's attorney. They didn't even include the self addressed stamped envelope they referenced! Is this an FDCPA violation, or just a stupid test? Surely I can object as overly broad, etc. and of course I will not grant them this unless on pain of incarceration...
  12. No, never sent an RFA. I didn't want to get too cute and dig myself a hole, or seem vexatious, or give them a chance to provide something better as to evidence. I'd say my knowledge has certainly increased since this began, and if I had it do over again I would, but right at the outset, I wan't as confident. That may be one reason I might want to hold off from trying to re-open with an MTC/MTD or a new RFA: If they've answered my discovery, and filed their documentation for trial as they did a couple of weeks, doesn't this close the door on them introducing more documentation just whenever they darn well please? Although unlikely, perhaps they produce the sale file info, and it indicates something adverse for my case? However, I do see the strength in such an approach, and will keep this option in mind tactically. Hopefully the CFPB complaint will light that fire under them, because as it stands now, they clearly seem to be on the wrong side of the Consent Order in the mandated conduct provisions highlighted by @CCRP626 above, certainly 119, and probably 121. They really need to revise their practices to what was ruled on by the government, and hopefully I can help persuade them to do so...
  13. CFPB complaint filed on their website, including attachments from Plaintiff filings from my case. Request for Judicial Notice filed, including a reference to the filed CFPB complaint by number. At first, my Judicial Notice Request included arguments as to how what they did violated the Consent Order, but I decided to remove all arguments, and just include facts, per the text of the rule, and not wanting to file something which would be stricken. I've kept the version I drafted with the arguments for an aide at trial. Also, Plaintiff finally responded to my RPoD. Nothing new was included beyond their recent filing. Many boilerplate objections. I figure this helps me, as now they don't have an excuse to keep filing (better or adequate) evidence against me. Honestly feel like their responses put them into more of a corner, as they: Object to as irrelevant my request for adequate chain of title which is very close to the Consent Order requirements from 119c State that they have no witnesses to call. So, with no affidavit ever filed from the OC, I should be able to beat them by objecting to anything from the OC as hersay (vanilla bill of sale, 1 page 2 column printout, 18 months of statements showing no purchases, only payments) as I mentioned, their responses included less than what they filed for trial, so no new nor compelling evidence Get to the courthouse to file my Judicial Notice, and true to @Jimmy E's prediction, Plaintiff has already postponed trial for 5 weeks. Comment to the clerk how unfortunate it is that P plays so many games, and that this delay was totally predictable, I'd like to get this over with. This makes me glad I filed the CFPB complaint. Their website asks you what a fair resolution would be, I answered that I want a Vacate/ Dismissal of current case, release and cease CR reporting of all alleged accounts (they claim an add'l one from GE Capital for about $630), and restitution of $1,000 in lieu of my filing FDCPA claims. Hell, that is a good discount for them! Hopefully, the CFPB complaint will get them moving... Question: is there any way to head them off from asking for further continuances?
  14. Thanks for pushing me on this @CCRP626 I think I am getting close to where I need to be. The Bill of Sale requirements you put in bold italics are very solid aren't they? I think this will help me establish, with the added weight of the Consent Order, that their BOS is just BS! I will get this order submitted for judicial notice by providing s copy, and a written request, within which I will identify the appropriate clauses. The self-representation resource you provided is also short and sweet and helpful, thanks again...
  15. @CCRP626 Thanks for the reply. I reviewed the Consent Order a bit more, and they sorta barely scrape by on a couple of the points of minimal requirements (i.e. these statements do show payments.). So I will review further over the weekend, but am not sure if I have a slam dunk argument from the CPFB document, and I admt I didn't get a separate CPFB complaint filed yet. However, I think I've got this figured out though as to the hearsay problem with PRA trying to attest to CAP 1's records. Not quite fully understanding how to assert or articulate what you said, a couple more searches brought me back to this thread. This sort of helped me fully understand the caselaw behind which, a competent witness must be available from the OC to authenticate these OC records. In my RPoD which Plaintiff has ignored for over 2 months (attached 4 posts up) I asked for any information on their witnesses, if any, so they should have no excuse for not having an OC witness. I am now 12 days until trial, so I think it is too late to file a written opposition to said records. Should I still try? They filed this stuff exactly 15 days until trial (seemed tactical on their part). So will I get a chance to refute the statements orally at the trial? If so, and if this gets to the point of an actual trial, will I have to start objecting to all this stuff they filed, or do I wait until the Plaintiff's attorney brings it up orally, and then do I object? Thanks again, CJ
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.