• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About bigman

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. This one blind sided me. I beleive I am in the mess because I disputed this one with Cap 1. I really did not believe this one was mine. I would have never disputed with them if I did. I was shocked when I saw the docs. I'm not really sure if there was a policy or not. Based on the docs the third party payments did not keep it current.
  2. there is always the threat of bankruptcy to give a little leverage. but it seems like they are holding the aces.
  3. Sorry about the title I meant "Nascar This really helps me a lot!" Thank you very much for this information. Let me pose this question you and everyone else. would I ammend my motion and add this case law, or would I just file it with the court? In other words i would like to get this on the record somehow before i actually argue this in a couple of weeks
  4. Justincase, I wanted to bro there just wasn't enough time once I got your advise. I will have one for the rest of the hearing, I don't know if it will matter at this point. Anyway I slept on that gang beating I took yesterday (even the Magistrate's secretary got in a couple of shots after the hearing) and I may have come up with a plan to get the bigman back in the ballgame. Okay here are the facts: There is a copy of the front of signed application, nothing on the back. The small print underneath the sig. says: "you agree to Misc. disclosures on the back of this app." On the front of th
  5. In the end I got nothing and he got everything he wanted. I mean for the purpose of beating my 4 year SOL the application is "binding" and is a written agreement. She then turns around and says the same application is not good enough when it comes to my five year SOL claim when I showed her I declined the Account balance coverage. so the 3rd party payments are good because the application isn't good enough, but my 4 year SOL is out because the application is good enough. Seems to me you can't have it both ways. But hey man, after today....I've just got no faith in this legal system. I w
  6. I am still alive on the 5 year, but barely. The 4 year statute got brushed aside and none of the Fdcpa issues got any traction. I feel like the only reason she did not kill the 5 year is because it would have just been an Amtrak level railroading. I tried the best I could. The magistrate told me that I belonged in Law school. It's hard to tell from the man size buttkicking i got today. I still think the 4 year SOL has legs, just need someone more qualified to argue it. Anyway good luck to all. I hope you fair better than I did.
  7. I argue that this account is not based on a written instrument and that the Plaintiff has not provided a written instrument. I cited several cases in which the theme was: to be considered a written instrument for the purposes of the 5 year statute the instrument itself must establish the liability. Specifially I cited Fernandez as one of my cases. the Magistrate then told me to give the laws I cited to the plaintiff so he can see them. Guys I lie to you not he put his hand to his almost as if to say "oh oh" and then he actually said..... "he's right". Then almost as if to catch himself h
  8. I arrive at the courthouse and there is the Plaintiffs lawyer sitting out front waiting on another case. He sees me and says "hey!" like he is my best friend. I do make it a point to be cordial though, I mean he is just doing his job. He calls me over and shows me some new evidence that shows the third party payments that all of a sudden go until October 2002. I swear to you the first thing that came to mind in that moment was "I'll be dang if that dogone Nascar didn't say this was gonna happen!" Guys I promise you the statements he brought looked very sketchy, but there was no way I cou
  9. I do edit my post but I don't change the entire context of what was posted. You did a lot more than correct a mispelled word. What you added would have led readers to believe my response were directed towards comments that were actually answering my later post. Given the theme of my post I found that a bit coincidental. Anyway I will post what happened to me today, I must admit Nascar there was something that you were right about. I hope this helps others. i will start my next post
  10. Nascar I see you edited your post after I entered the post before this one. Why edit that post and not simply answer my post? To others it now appears all this info I have quoted was available before my post was made. Every other answer you've made on this thread was added after a post of mine. Now you answer my post by editing an earlier post. Interesting.... There is no question whether it is 2001 or 2002. the data, already in the possession of the judge, shows October 2001. There is no payment made in October 2002 and that could have been easily determined by the Judge looking at the
  11. This is not my evidence. This is based on the evidence entered by the Plaintiff. He can't have evidence contrary to his own evidence. His exhibits show the DOLA as October 1, 2001. I really don't know what is left to question. I hear you guys, but calm down and listen to what? cheap shots? What help am I getting from the folks you are mentioning? Look at the posts. One took the position opposite of me and everyone else posting here in the beginning simply because I disagreed with them before on a few other posts. The others jumped in because I dared to question whether what one of the
  12. The law says if a debt is time barred they are out. Now you are saying that "YOU are not an Attorney" and so I don't get the same treatment under the law. Isn't that a bias in and of itself. Nobody is talking about fair! What we are talking about is the law! Since the Judges are never wrong, since the JDBs have the right to do whatever they want....why does this Forum even exist? why even try to fight it. The debt is time barred, just extend it! the JDB has no documentation, just reset it! The attorney forgets his documentation give him more time! Just keep things going until they
  13. then tell me why do we get the shaft when we are the slightest bit unprepared or late. The first time I was with the this Judge, while we were waiting for the attorney (about an hour late) she said to me "I am not pleased he is late. If this were you he would be demanding a summary judgement." Truth is he would have gotten it too. Divemedic you say "there is no other way to do it" I just can't agree with that. You have a motion to dismiss, the debt is proven to be time barred, and an attorney who claims he doesn't have the file to verify what he (and I am sure the judge) already know. Y
  14. I went to see what you were referring to. Unfortunately I don't see anything that allows what happened in my case. Perhaps you can show me where it says that during a hearing, with no motion, while being confronted by the judge about a false document the court is given reason to set another date. This rule you are quoting talks about "excusable neglect". "I don't have the file in front of me" on 2 seperate ocassions does not fall under a hippie's definition of excusable neglect. I don't think we are dealing with a relaxed interpretation of this rule Nascar. Anymore relaxed and the rul
  15. What Condescending remarks are you referring to? Ok, so your telling me that in A case that is clearly time barred, with a Lawyer that has no response to my motion to dismiss but "I don't have his motion in front of me" it is normal and ethical, for the judge to say "Ok I'll give you another 2 weeks to respond"? Furthermore are you saying that when this same Lawyer gets caught submitting a false document and it is again proven that the debt is time barred, it is perfectly normal and ethical for the Judge to reset the hearing for 2 days later simply because the same lawyer says "I don't have