• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About colormeruby

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. So 2 weeks ago, a particular company, (appears to be original creditor) sent me a 1099 for a debt over 12 yrs old, under $2000. No letter, just a !099. Then today I get a letter from said company stating the following... Last week you received a 1099 from XXXX that was sent to you in error. Please disregard our previous communication and accept our apologies for any confusion this may have caused. Please let this letter serve as our confirmation that this has NOT been reported tot he internal revenue service. Should you have any further on this matter.... So I was like WTH???? What in the
  2. That is my take on it. The affidavit they sent me with their MSJ is flawed in lots of ways. Can't say that I know if fighting it has done any good as nothing seems to be happening even though both sides have motions pending. Good luck!
  3. I don't know for sure, I am just telling you what I have seen on the Justia Dockets and some of the cases I have read. It appears that people ARE suing the CA's in Addition to the JDB's, on the same complaint. I have no idea what you would "technically" call it.
  4. I could be wrong, & I would appreciate someone else chiming in, but I have read that you CAN enjoin the lawyer to a cross-claim, if he has, in the course of prosecuting, violated laws on behalf of his client. There are other cases where the lawyers have been sued directly along with midland, check the justia dockets. I have also seen cases where the supposed affiants for midland are also enjoined in the cross-claim.
  5. Too bad they don't have any of that stuff. (( Not really too sad about it.
  6. I was trying specifically to see the lawyers that are suing me. And, unfortunately, I am pretty sure they are watching this forum, so I am not going to be posting very specific info publicly. I am pretty sure I will never see them go to trial. NONE of them seem to go to trial or they just dismiss on the spot. I just was trying to see how MINE behaved in front of the judge. The connection between all these different CA's and the JDB's they sue for is interesting though and something I am watching feverently. Though it may not apply to my case specifically, in the broader spectrum of life it is
  7. Yes, you need something like this. In my state it is an "order" to strike evidence, then you LIST what you motioned to strike. Mine say something like "It is hereby ordered on this day_________ of _______ that the following be be stricken as evidence from this case.", "list to be stricken", "by order of the judge_____________, XXXXx county court" I turned in all my motions originally without orders, but in looking over someone's docs saw my mistake and took the orders to the clerks office. Since I had not gone over my allotted days, they said no problem with taking them at that time. edited t
  8. I do understand 6.3 very well. I have my own request for oral hearing out as we speak. I am studying the process of the court, and how the judges respond, and how the CA's respond. It could be a algorithm in vicious predatory behavior. They consistently break these rules, and every time they have sent any kind of conflict letter, it has been only 1-2 days before trial. That would violate the magistrate Rule 8 that you posted, if the same rules apply to state court. I have readied myself no less than 5 times to go sit through someone else's trial to see that "conflict" letter post the day befor
  9. Dr. Evil, please feel free to refrain from posting anything to my threads, unless you plan on actually helping me. I have not once seen you actually answer anything with an intent to help, rather you are simply an antagonist. You poke rather than help. I would appreciate that a SUPPORT FORUM be for supporting and helping and learning to understand, not a place to be abused. You do none of this. You only make fun of people who genuinely need help. I have read everything you have ever posted. I read here everyday. You are just rude. I can assure you that I know lots of things in my field that wo
  10. of course I'll keep you posted. I'll keep looking at the docket to try and find them in action. And next time I am down at the courthouse, I'll see if they'll let me look at this document. I am pretty sure, that I'll never get to see them in action though. Clearly not their style.
  11. Ah well, maybe I'll go down and see if I can take a look at it. Here's how that case turned out though. Neither the plaintiff or the Defendant appeared. The plaintiff had, a month or so before the trial was scheduled, filed for MSJ. In total, there were only 4 documents filed with the court; the subpoena, Answer of Defendant, Motion for summary judgment, and Conflict Letter: Pltf Request For Protection To Proceed With XXXXXX County Case. The defendant clearly answered, then failed to defend himself at all. So when he failed to appear for the trial, I guess the "protective order" somehow allo
  12. I have been watching cases in my county in GA, waiting for an opportunity to see the CA suing me, in action at trial. Every case that gets a trial date, they fail to appear, send in conflict letters a day before or some other nonsense, where they don't bother to show up. So they had one coming up this week, and I have been waiting for that conflict letter to show up as is their habit, and it did yesterday, However, it says something I haven't seen before and am not real sure what it means. So, anyone have an idea what this means? "Conflict Letter: Pltf Request For Protection To Proceed With
  13. Hi everyone out there! I was wondering if anyone had any ideas why debt collectors, keep calling my number for persons that have never had use of this #. This will be the 4th cease and desist letter I have written to a company that refuses to quit calling here for someone I do not know. This will be my 2nd letter in 2 weeks to 2 different collectors for 2 different people. I have no hits on my credit report, and no idea why my telephone # keeps being "skip traced" (as one of these "agents" said to me) under other people's names. Of the latest 2, the first one took 13 minutes to tell me who th
  14. In my particular instance, the affidavit is highly suspect and I have challenged it. No personal knowledge and Both the Notary and the affiant failed to endorse it properly as required by THEIR state and the state I am in. I cited that. The affidavit is also very general, but refers to documents that are not attached, I cited the laws that require one disclose all docs or the affidavit is insufficient. It also included new account #'s (PLURAL) that seems to be pulled out of thin air, challenged that too. All I can say, is challenge it, cause if you don't now, you can't later.