Theorist

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Theorist

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Michigan

Recent Profile Visitors

188 profile views
  1. No, it was totally a levity thing. The contents of my own mind are the one thing over which I must insist on retaining sole purview, so you'll just have to trust me on this one. I obviously however failed to convey my intent, and for that, I'm actually going to go against my own previous advice and apologize---in hope of a stay of execution.
  2. My admission of a motive of procrastination does not affect the sincerity and value of my comments about civility otherwise. My attempt at ending on a note of levity after making my point well enough is no reason for a sentence of death. Should I have added a smiley maybe?
  3. Okay, look, the real reason I chimed-in is because I'm procrastinating. I'm here because I should be researching my brief. Don't think me ungrateful for your feeding of my needs.
  4. The phrase, "For those savvy enough", is not an insult. Victim card not redeemable here. My point about civility stands, and my motive which you're trying to assign on my behalf is rooted in appreciation for all that I have learned from this forum. To lob the first insult never makes a meaningful point more intelligent or compelling. For this forum in particular, readers are best to view the motives of those who bully with a healthy dose of skepticism. Note that I don't think you're a bully. I do think you're often a downer, but as long as you're not being insulting, and given that I've never significantly doubted the accuracy of your statements, then the fascinating question of whether you're an exceptionally deft mole for the other side who seeks to only very gently subtract from readers' optimism without blowing your cover, or rather are in fact the most caring member of the forum who provides it with necessary realism, is entirely moot. The information you provided at the top of this thread is of a negative bent but seems valuable and very diligently assembled, with legalfight909's crime being that he injected a counterbalancing smidgen of optimism. As long as readers are however able to apply their own judgment regarding poster intent, contrary perspectives are great, even from moles. Thus my chiming-in about never apologizing to bullies.
  5. There's no need to apologize to members of this forum who refuse to treat you with civility. Just ask yourself why they would behave that way. Also don't let their behavior---and odd tendency to mix-in tales of personal past woe---taint what still is an incredible resource thanks to contributions made by some rare individuals truly deserving of sainthood. Your comment that "the burden of proof is on them" is the most on-point statement on the page, at least as a response to what may be otherwise demotivating points---valid or not---being made. Because, if the mission of this forum isn't to keep what you said as the central focus, then I guess it would need to be re-named the "Roll Over and Let 'Em Have Their Way With You Infocenter".
  6. Brotherskeeper, thank you again for your outstanding responses. I'm grateful for having received your attention and advice.
  7. Thank you for asking. What happened when I inquired was hilarious. I hope to get back to you on that with as much detail as possible, but please give me some time.
  8. A debt collection law firm claims that Capital One is the plaintiff in a complaint against me. This thread is about how to get from Capital One, and only from Capital One, confirmation that Capital One agrees that it is indeed the plaintiff in the complaint. Everything else is a tangent. Tangents are fine, but those who can't understand the difference should post elsewhere. Clydesmom's last post above is very helpful. She says there is no way, she gives reasons why, she's not being personally insulting about it, she's not mischaracterizing my point to make it easier to brush-off, and she even took the time to phone a lawyer about it. I appreciate that a ton. Her answer does not provide a solution to the puzzle that's presented, it makes no attempt at creativity, and it leaves unaddressed what seems to me to be a very odd and gaping hole or mystery in regard to the way the field conducts itself, such to make the field ripe for abuse by debt collection law firms, but, as I said even about her earlier insulting posts, she's probably correct. She's maybe not the one you'd want at Mission Control when word comes in from Apollo 13 that CO2 levels in the capsule are rising, but her comments are on-point and well-reasoned. Even so, I tend to be more Gene Kranz in my thinking, so I think the question needs to be kept open. Harry Seaward's scenarios are so disconnected from what I've already explained as background that I see no value-add for this thread in engaging. I don't know who asked about random lawyers randomly suing for random plaintiffs, but randomness isn't a feature of anything I've portrayed. Please get with the program, Harry. Brotherskeeper's point, about BV80's point, about the credit report, is valid and relevant, except that I've already provided my own valid and relevant response. It's that we already know what a credit report provides, and it's not the same as what I'm trying to accomplish. This thread is meant to explore a more direct approach than that one, by pushing the topic as far as it can go, even if in futility. I consider the distinction important, so I don't want the subject changed. That distinction is why this thread has value. I'm not fully convinced that we have yet explored all possible answers to the real question necessarily.
  9. Brotherskeeper, thank you very much. I appreciate your help. On my own I've uncovered a few other potential leads but am still trying to verify their relevance.
  10. Oh, I'll whine if I wanna whine. I may win my case or I may lose. Neither outcome will improve the IQ level on display in some these comments.
  11. Me as an intelligent grown adult being bullied by precocious kindergarteners wouldn't be more ridiculous a situation than this one. It's simple, people. If there is indeed no way for me to independently verify that the firm who filed the paperwork for the complaint against me represents the entity they are claiming to be plaintiff, particularly in a case involving debt collection, then that's an arrangement conducive to deceit, period. That's regardless of whether such deceit is in my case occurring, which currently is unknowable, nor whether it has occurred in the case of anyone, ever. Such simple and obvious logic is not negated by others' empty puffery, the apparent fragility of others' ego, nor even others' long experience. It's therefore a valid topic for exploration, however possibly fringe. Now get over it. Sheesh.
  12. On second thought, bmc100's "Step-by-Step for JDBs" approach probably is all wrong for my situation. I was confused by all of my open browser tabs and strategy possibilities. Simply put, I think the documentation sent with the complaint seems weak, and that if I challenge the suit they won't be able to easily produce better details, on my hunch that the original creditor is not in fact a party to the suit in spite of what they're portraying. My instinct therefore is to want to point-out to the court the flaws in what they've provided, but I'm working on figuring-out the appropriate timing and format for doing that according to civil procedure, and how one phrases such assertions, if at all.
  13. BV80, I hear you, and, again, I am going to follow-up. I promise. I of course want all of the help I can get, but on a practical level this thread was meant by me to focus on only one potential attack angle out of many. In my 300 other open browser tabs is where I'm studying the more conventional approaches. It's not that I'm not listening or that I'm trying to be difficult. It's that my intent has been that this thread should remain fringe. If the desire is to shift the discussion instead to, "Here's how we always do it.", well, my other browser windows have got that covered. A thread that pushes an oddball theory seems to me a better contribution of value to the internet, even if it ends-up wrong, as long as the debate makes that clear. Since you're offering however help to me on a general level, which is fantastic, my status is that despite saying in my last post that I intend to attack this like a JDB suit, I didn't mean I'm intending to use unconventional tactics otherwise. That's because, as I indicated in that same post, I don't have any unconventional tactics to try. What I've got from this thread are mostly tangents, for which I'll take the blame, and opposition. Lacking innovative and compelling ideas focused on the original question, what I currently expect is to use the most sound and conservative advice I can piece together from around the web that's tailored to JDB lawsuits, but with the twist that I'll be using them for a suit in which the named plaintiff is an original creditor, essentially playing chicken with them and trying to call a bluff. If they respond by producing better quality documentation and more aggressiveness than I'd expected, I guess we'll know then that I was wrong. For my approach, I particularly like the pinned thread by user bmc100, "Those Being Sued in Michigan by a JDB, a Step-by-Step in Defending". I'm however stuck in that I'm not yet sure how certain tactics or strategies he or others elsewhere provide translate into concrete sentences that go into concrete documents submitted at correct points in time with properly officious and lawyerly wording. Although I could ace a quiz about civil process and could tell you what each kind of document is for, advice on the web often seems to either consist of empty templates and bulletpoint overviews or else very casual discussions that cite caselaw and such. I don't know yet how to bring the textbook stuff together with real-world ideas for intelligent execution tailored to my own situation. So, I'll probably use something very cookie-cutter, but at risk of regretting missing-out on options later ("If only I had done X at point Y, then I'd have proven Z, and then..."). I'm new enough that trying to grasp all possible future chess moves first before I make any move at all has me very bogged down. So, yeah, I could just post all of my info here and rely on the kindness and good graces of others, which is a wonderful option that I'm grateful to have here. I should do that. Indeed, I'm slightly paranoid that the opposition might be watching forums like this one, but I also realize that the volume of cases and the insignificance of the sum involved in my suit gives me cover. And, I'm still stuck on the idea that I'm eventually going to figure things out on my own and arrive at a nice blend of ideas, sometime in late 2020 probably, if only I could somehow address the nagging feeling behind the question I actually posted here. The original question of this thread is that if I don't trust that the debt collection law firm attached to a suit actually represents the entity they're naming as plaintiff, how then during the legal process do I request indisputable documentation from the plaintiff that the plaintiff agrees it is the plaintiff? The answers have mostly been, "You can't do that", and, "Lawyers never lie". Well, okay then. I didn't know the judicial system had prohibitions against common sense. In such a reality however it must necessarily be concluded that no reliable data exists that Capital One, Discover, or American Express have litigated anyone, ever. Why am I the only one who grasps the disconnect? Clydesmom for example says people aren't being misled into thinking their suit is with an original creditor since people create threads here saying they're being sued by an original creditor. I can only throw up my hands. It's not that I'm convinced that I know what's going on. I just thought this would be easier. For sure, I don't know what the hell I'm doing, so, I'm seeking creative ideas here for a very particular angle of approach, because standard approaches are covered elsewhere. I am willing to be the guinea pig for my own ideas and to report back the outcome. All well-intended warnings against my foolishness have been actually quite appreciated. What instead however might be happening is that certain veteran contributors who would be the best ones to formulate creative ideas because of their long experience are just too deeply invested in the sum total of all of their previous postings of advice to others through the years, so that for me to come along and ask that we think outside the box ends-up being like a personal affront. And I get it that everyone genuinely thinks they're being helpful, which then justifies becoming testy over stuff like my credit report, even though that's not the help I requested. A credit report can never answer the question I actually asked, even if it seems like it can. My question at a deeper level is about finding the missing variable that makes possible the otherwise ludicrous notion that large banks sue consumers over piddly amounts. A hunt for a missing X factor variable cannot be found through shortcuts. I just didn't realize that probing a seemingly simple and fundamental and frankly fishy issue would bring as much pushback as this, or an insistence on shifting the focus. Nobody has proven where anyone's data on the litigiousness of Capital One comes from, other than that it starts with paperwork filed for lawsuits, which is assembled by debt collection law firms. Nobody has explained a way in which a defendant can independently verify that the relationship portrayed by such a debt collection law firm with a supposed plaintiff is the truth. Nobody has explained compellingly how it makes business sense against the backdrop of market forces for certain large original creditors to litigate over small credit card debts. So, I don't know that I'm correct, but I'm left unsatisfied. There's even this Katie Wheat person who says she has no qualifications and offers no data, yet deems in her comments at the bottom of this article that there are certain "dangerous" and "shameful" ways of thinking which mustn't be entertained! I just can't stop rolling my eyes. It is more than just a little surprising to me that apparently no one thinks widespread deception by debt collection law firms via lawsuit paperwork could be actually the most plausible and mundane explanation for certain things that seemingly don't add up, and that it's not even worth talking about. It's dangerous! It's shameful! I didn't know that questioning of evidence and logic could be so wrong. Again, if despite certain credit report indications and various wordings on various documents, a defendant still isn't convinced that an attorney really represents the named plaintiff in a suit being brought, what other options could plausibly be invented creatively for obtaining confirmation directly from that supposed plaintiff? No such issue in any case ever has been? I've been searching but remain perplexed.
  14. Indeed, it is frustrating to read threads on legal advice forums where the person asking the question or stating his or her problem never comes back to report the final outcome. And, nearly all threads are like that. I don't have a court appearance today, though I am running out of time to file my answer. I am juggling multiple life realities currently of course, and there might be some delays in my responses as things unfold, but, I do hope to follow through on everything here out of gratitude for all of the feedback. It's not clear to me how anyone knows for sure that Capital One, American Express, and Discover are actually so litigious, given that what I'm explaining here is a theory about debt collection law firms obfuscating who the real plaintiff is en masse. My theory could be totally wrong, but the contradicting logic continues to be circular, in the sense of, "We know that Capital One is litigious because everyone knows that Capital One is litigious". I think everyone is using erroneous data. I can promise you that, based on my exceptional yet failed attempts at getting an answer, nobody except for an apparently very special few at Capital One know definitively whether or not Capital One is suing me at all, and those insiders are protected from outside contact better than prisoners at Guantanamo.
  15. I think I've figured-out what's missing, i.e., why I smell a rat. I guess I'm either Erin Brockovich or I'm an idiot---one of those two. Probably others will let me know. To me, it always needs to come back to the business model. That's why I'm insisting on the existence of a needle in this haystack that others say cannot be. Galileo knew things didn't add-up, so he looked deeper and found the truth. Galileo texted me that shifting focus to credit report notations at this time would be premature, though I do intend to provide those too, and I'm grateful that you care enough about my situation to be asking for details of any kind. Burn at the stake though I may for heresy, I do hereby declare that everybody online has it wrong about Capital One. Capital One is not hauling nice Mrs. Brimford who works down at the library into a courtroom over her unpaid $500 card balance, nor probably suing anyone for their balances of a grand or two. To unsophisticated consumers like me, it's accepted as common sense that big fish won't waste time and money litigating over such small potatoes. Therefore, without saying that such can excuse non-payment, it's a shock to people like me to be served for the first time in their lives with a court summons, and another shock to then go onto the internet and find that those in-the-know consider defending against a large and famous original creditor to be particularly difficult. When you stitch together all of the advice being offered online, the picture one gets, of Mrs. Brimford and Capital One having it out with each-other, is as silly and unrealistic as imagining that Mike Tyson would just as easily fight her for it in the ring at Caesar's Palace. Okay, maybe he would do that---I don't know. Emotionally, it's a big kick in the stomach. And, it isn't true. Everyone perpetuating this image is screwing with perceptions to the detriment of consumers, however good the intentions, if my hunch is correct. Without fantastical innovations in lawyering technology allowing Capital One to bend laws of time and space, there is no reason to believe they can be more litigious than most other banks can be, because the conventional wisdom which says that's economically unworkable is the reality, and with those in-the-know often apparently skipping past this common sense starting point when they comment. My research, which I conducted five minutes ago, reveals that when shown the paperwork I was served, 100% of respondents incorrectly state as their belief that the plaintiff in the suit being brought against me is Capital One, even though I now at last realize that's not what it really says. Debt collection lawsuits might be different from other kinds of suits, in that the party actually bringing the suit has reasons for monkeying with how the plaintiff is indicated in the paperwork. Normally there would be no reason for being anything other than perfectly clear on that matter, such that even most lawyers might not grasp the significance of what I'm suggesting here. My summons, in the box marked "plaintiff", puts "Capital One Bank, N.A." on the top line. A few lines lower is a "c/o" followed by the debt collection law firm name. Any reasonably intelligent person possessing only a commoner's understanding of how lawsuits work, being served a summons for the first time, will think that "c/o" means "care of" in the sense that all communication is to be made with the firm listed after it, being the attorney representative of Capital One, the logically-presumed plaintiff. Nope. The attorney representing the plaintiff is the firm indicated not in the box marked "plaintiff", but in the box marked "plaintiff's attorney". If that same firm is indicated also in the plaintiff box, regardless of whatever other company name is listed there too, what's being indicated is that the plaintiff and the attorney are the same firm. The reason this truth can be entirely missed by defendants, as well as even attorneys, or small claims court judges, or court clerks, or government compilers of arcane statistics, or legal scholar generators of pie charts, leading to erroneous data everywhere depicting Capital One as ridiculously litigious, is that not only aren't these kinds of people sufficiently questioning how a business could even do that and be profitable, they also might not be accustomed to thinking about "chain of title" when reading the paperwork in front of them. If you as a defendant when you receive your first-ever summons don't already know what "chain of title" is about or how it's indicated, and if the indication in your case is done by using "c/o", your chances as an intelligent human being of understanding that Capital One is not your plaintiff at all are surely close to none. Supposedly for the purpose of not confusing the least sophisticated consumer, a practice which has developed is that of indicating as plaintiff not only the name of whatever local unknown collection firm is actually bringing the suit, but also the name of the original creditor, so that the defendant will better understand how that alleged debt came about. The way that a reputable collection firm in my opinion would do that is by using a word such as "assignee", so that a layman reading a summons or complaint would understand easily that debt originated with Capital One has been assigned to the collection firm, and that the collection firm is the plaintiff. By using "c/o" instead of "assignee", a collection firm, if taken to task about it, can say that they're just being "helpful" by showing the clear "chain of title" where "plaintiff" is indicated, even though what they're really doing is fooling pretty much anyone who looks at that paperwork, making them think it's going to be a fight with a Mike Tyson kind of opponent. When you then go online for advice, you're told that it's going to be a KO for the other side. I don't know how many different ways are maybe being used in paperwork to obfuscate to defendants and even to small claims court judges who the real plaintiff is. I also don't know how often Capital One really is the true plaintiff, nor am I claiming that never happens. However, I think safest would be to assume that any time any consumer has ever posted to a forum like this one saying he or she is being sued by Capital One, that consumer was mistaken, unless clear evidence to the contrary was also supplied. So, against pretty much all advice found around the web, I intend to proceed with my case as if it is being brought by a collection agency, even though Capital One is listed at the top in the plaintiff box. I don't know if I can do something in addition, such as add a counterclaim, on the basis that the least sophisticated consumer would be deceived by the trickery of the wording of the paperwork into thinking the plaintiff is Capital One even though it isn't, with that constituting some kind of violation. At minimum I would like to somehow indicate to the court, and to my real opponents, that I know that Capital One is not a plaintiff in any lawsuit against me. Not sure how to do that, or if I can, or if it makes a difference. I kinda sorta managed, after enormous effort, to get a Capital One representative to admit that it's unlikely Capital One is involved in any capacity. Now then, let me say that everything in this post is of course just a hypothesis. Tomorrow I might realize that I've got it all wrong. Probably someone here will very quickly correct me. Could I however be right, that, say, 99% of people who think they're being sued by Capital One are just misreading the paperwork? In terms of the economics, even if my hypothesis is proven wrong, that still wouldn't mean things can add-up any better otherwise.