christineAZ

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About christineAZ

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Arizona

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's why I wrote earlier "I realize that this is not a consumer rights forum."
  2. Since BV80 asked me to change the subject as there was no proof of the offer, here it is: http://creditsuit.org/litigation-forum/baker-v-midland-funding-mcm-and-bursey-associates/2019-9-10-30001-offer-of-judgment-declined/ And I realize my entire website is a giant mess. Unfortunately, I've had neither time nor money to spend on any of my web sites and I've been working on getting some organic food and a functioning fire department with paramedics to my rural community in my SPARE time. That's when I don't work on my little organic farm or do paid work such as at the Airbnb rental I manage. If more people cared, I'd post more ... But I'll definitely add the major filings from now on and the docket. I'm now in year eight (8) of litigation with Midland, first they sued me, I prevailed on SOL, thanks to help I got here and from a lawyer who sent me the winning brief when I was previously sued by Acarta. So I sued them in 2013, all my claims were dismissed and I prevailed on appeal, overturned TWO judges. 215 docket entries as of now. I think we have one more round of motions for summary judgment after we're done with discovery and I can't wait to get to the jury. Not for the money, but if you have trouble believing the offer is real, I think I should get national attention when I go to jury -- regardless of what happens. Have to get back to writing my joint motion and affidavit and then get all my exhibits together, including the countless relevant emails over the last couple weeks. I've been literally working 15 hour days, most of it on the discovery / depo disputes ...
  3. UPDATED 9/11/19: Harry Seaward put me on "moderation" because of these posts here. This is definitely NOT a consumer rights forum. I've tolerated the ads to PURE SCUM like Lexington, but this really takes the cake. Harry must be getting kickbacks from Midland I took a screenshot of this thread for discussion at my sites when I have more time. Moderator comment: you were put on moderated status because you refuse to engage in a discussion about the things you post here. This definitely IS a consumer rights forum, but is also a responsible and accurate facts forum. Of course you're welcome to have any "discussion" with yourself that you wish on your own websites, but, as you're fully aware, content from this website is copyrighted and may not be used without permission. As far as ads are concerned, any ads you see here are triggered by your own browsing habits. The only exception being Lexington, but they have never objected to anything we say in here, and any time their name comes up in discussion, we always discourage people from using their services. We're in the middle of discovery disputes and 9/16 is the discovery cutoff. I didn't get much info from the Bursey defendants and got nothing but objections from Midland so far. I realize that this is not a consumer rights forum, but if there are any people interested in more than their credit rating and bank account, after over 7 years in the courts, I'm looking for some changes for all the little people and obviously could use some help. It's been a long 7 years, I overturned two federal judges in one appeal and NOBODY should EVER have to go through this again.
  4. I've never seen NCLC have a sale. I've been using their FDCPA and FCRA publication and I'm now in YEAR 8 of litigation against Midland and the Bursey defendants, should head to jury trial next year finally. Prevailed on appeal ... but it's like living with a chronic disease. Their settlement offers have had such detrimental effects on me, I finally put in our last joint statement that I'll settle for $250k to me and $750k to a foundation to bring medical and social services to our abandoned rural community. Haven't heard from them about settling since. I'll rather take NOTHING than not do all I can to get my day in court. https://library.nclc.org/bookstore FLASH SALE: 10% Off Any New NCLC Subscription NCLC Publications on The Daily Show NCLC attorney Persis Yu describes how "student loan debt can follow a borrower to the grave" in a segment on America's student loan debt crisis on The Daily Show on Thursday, July 25. Watch the clip, featuring titles from NCLC's Consumer Law Practice Series, here. Subscribe to any title from NCLC with 10% using promo code DAILYSHOW at checkout. Offer expires Monday, July 29.
  5. Harry, the "right people" are people who know what they're talking about . Legislators usually get approached by people who don't know what they're talking about. And you have to talk TO the right people of course too -- the people with the power to change things. What's all business to you drives other people to commit suicide. I care about those people, you don't. And "Goody_Ouchless", I know you're scared, and maybe rightfully so. In the 30s there were too many people like you, afraid, ... doing nothing. The few that had a conscience and acted on it were outnumbered. And I understand that most people can't afford to be gutsy and put their conscience before family and all. My mom's dad marched off to Russia, had too much to lose. My dad's dad hid in the Alps until the war was over. Some really brave people like Willy Brandt actually fought the Germans. Excellent example, thank you!
  6. Harry, thanks for your post with the Midland consent decree, I'm so out of the loop! Had a nice break for two years while on appeal, time to figure out what's going on. And actually, that consent order proves that all the naysayers are wrong. EVERYTHING good that ever happened is because people cared enough to complain WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE. And all the bad things happening are because the naysayers not only doing NOTHING to make things better, but discouraging and trolling the ones who do.
  7. You still don't understand, this was in 2012 -- done and over with. But you are correct, that's why I included: Edited: I get it, I didn't quote B, but that would have been for Midland to prove in the response they didn't file. I just stated: "Midland filed suit on 6/11/12, when the action was already time barred." I was literally just a few weeks out of the SOL.
  8. Oh, I misunderstood! I was literally within WEEKS of getting into the 6 year SOL. IV. Midland's Claim Is Time Barred. The Arizona legislature changed the statute of limitations for credit cards from 3 to 6 years in 2011. The new law became effective on 7/20/11. [DSOF 4] Therefore, the 3-year statute of limitations applies to the alleged debt as it was not subject to a written agreement [DSOF 5] and all my credit card accounts were “open” accounts: ARS 12-543 Oral debt; stated or open account; relief on ground of fraud or mistake; three year limitation There shall be commenced and prosecuted within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions: 1. For debt where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing. 2. Upon stated or open accounts other than such mutual and current accounts as concern the trade of merchandise between merchant and merchant, their factors or agents, but no item of a stated or open account shall be barred so long as any item thereof has been incurred within three years immediately prior to the bringing of an action thereon. [emphasis added] I have not used any credit card that I later defaulted on after June [6/5/18: just noticed the most important "1" is missing! Probably correct in the affidavit.] 2008 [Affidavit ¶2, DSOF 6]. Midland filed the complaint on June 11, 2012. [DSOF 7] Pursuant to ARS 12-505, an action barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of the law: ARS 12-505. Effect of statute changing limitation A. An action barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of such law enlarging the time in which such action may be commenced. This action is time barred: · Midland failed to produce a written contract and it can not produce a written agreement as I did not have written contracts with any of my credit card issuers. [Affidavit ¶3, DSOF 5] · Midland can not possible document charges less than 3 years prior to 7/20/11, the effective date of the new 6 year statute of limitations [Affidavit ¶2, DSOF 6] · Time barred actions are not revived by amendment of the law. · Midland filed suit on 6/11/12, when the action was already time barred. Attached hereto is DSS Financial v. Deborah Walrod as Exhibit A. On 1/15/09 The Maricopa County Superior Court concluded on appeal that the action for a First USA credit card was time barred as the last charge occurred over 3 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. In LVNV Funding v Leslie Thompson, Exhibit B, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled on 2/15/08 that a claim for a Sears charge card was time barred because the last charge occurred over 3 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Even if Midland could provide admissible evidence to document its claim, this action would be time barred. ---------------------------- The judge dismissed because he considered it an "open" account, but ONLY because Midland didn't respond. I got lucky. And that's the other thing I'd like to pursue, the awful rulings in justice courts. ALWAYS for the creditor unless they really have no choice. I've been dealing with judge Taylor since 2000. He hates consumers and consumer claims, but otherwise is a nice guy. Gets re-elected every time. I only need ONE legislator to look at this case and then contact judge Taylor to inquire why he not only openly condones, but ENCOURAGES creditors to submit false documentation. He totally IGNORED the entirely fraudulent card member agreement. He denied my motion to strike. That's an even bigger problem than the laws.
  9. Am I supposed to be afraid of Reed? Who is he in-house counsel for now? This is actually useful info and what a coincident, Lippman sued me too one time and just yesterday I threw away the papers. So did anyone ask Sinema WHY she supported that bill? And you misunderstood, I didn't default, got Midland dismissed.
  10. You're STILL here!!!! It was YOU who predicted that my litigation was doomed. It's people like you who are responsible for everything bad that's happening on this planet. The trolls, the ignorant. The kind of people who make judgments without ever reading the evidence -- PUN INTENDED! Everybody PLEASE do NOT respond if you have nothing of value to contribute.
  11. One of the tasks I sure could use help with is analyzing the legislative hearing minutes, transcribing and analyzing their arguments, of course compiling evidence to counter their arguments etc. Need to contact every legislator and ask for their view and what it would take for them to support the legislative change. And of course documenting what everybody says, compiling the legislators views and post it publicly so people know who to vote for. We don't have money to give them, so votes is all we can promise. 2018-3-23-Bursey-Exhibits-C-F-legislature.pdf
  12. I'm back in district court after the appeals court remanded, so my case is REALLY old, from 2012. Finished my opposition to the latest round of msjs last night and I'm fired up about changing the AZ law. Bursey & Associates and Midland argue now that the SOL in AZ always was 6 years to get my claim for a time-barred lawsuit dismissed. They included minutes of the AZ legislature when they amended A.R.S. 12-548 to include credit cards with the 6-year SOL and that was really interesting to see how that worked. I've read that there's now lots of litigation over the STARTING date for the SOL (when the action accrues) and it's not what they talked about in those minutes. I just looked for Midland cases in Mohave County and the last case was filed in 2014, what's up with that? I also searched for "Encore", but didn't get anything. This litigation is getting old, I'm either going to get dismissed again and then it's back to the appeals court or I'm going to the jury -- 200 miles from Phoenix with no clue. Either way, thousands more hours of work. I'd like to put all that work to good use and lobby Arizona legislators to change back to the 3 year SOL and to define a specific SOL start date. So I'm looking for: 1) people who have been subjected to unfair practices and especially who were provided false documentation. In my case, they submitted for the HSBC account a literally "generic template", unreadable, faxed in 2001 and for HOUSEHOLD, not HSBC. While I'm very interested in Midland and Bursey & Associates violations, any CREDIT CARD related legal abuse would help. The last case they filed in our justice court in 2014 was dismissed because the consumer filed for bankruptcy after they filed for the default judgment. So that's an EXCELLENT example why the SOL should be shorter. It really sucks when you have lousy credit for 5 years and THEN you have to bk. 2) people who'd like to help with getting the law changed, work on a good proposal. In the 2011 minutes were absolutely NO representatives for consumers. One Democratic legislator was the only person to argue for consumers and keeping the 3-year SOL. And she didn't know that much about debt collection, so wish I'd been able to help her arguments. Collection attorneys and judges testified, of course NOT for consumers. I'd like to prepare the new legislation, amend BOTH A.R.S. 12-548 and A.R.S. 12-543 so that credit cards are removed from A.R.S. 12-548 and added specifically to A.R.S. 12-543. Regarding the start of the SOL, often it's the last payment and that's easy to determine, except that sometimes consumers are conned into making a payment AFTER the account was charged off. So I'll have to think this through, maybe it should be the date of charge-off, but usually we only have the month, not the exact date. Anyway, appreciate comments! Exh-11--enlargement-of-card-member-agreement.pdf