hopefulscambeater.

Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

hopefulscambeater. last won the day on December 26 2010

hopefulscambeater. had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

About hopefulscambeater.

  • Rank
    Grasshopper Extradaniare

Profile Fields

  • Location
    KY

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. TO "try" to simplify it, the OC either sells or assigns all the rights that goes with the debt, they assign to "CA A" who does not collect, OC obtains it again, then assigns to "CA B" who call constantly the wrong telephone # never getting anywhere, OC gets it back and decides to sell it to "JDB A" who has wrong telephone number as before, they give up sell it to "JDB B" (THIS may go on for some time and then SOL is close to expiring so last JDB decides to sue hoping for an easy default judgment.........IF the chain of custody is not clearly kept intact then the JDB suing may not (and probably does not) have ANY legal rights to collect- In at least most states (if not all) they'd also have to prove exactly to the penny how ALL fees were calculated (and by whom) in other words these are the legal reasons why most JDB are not willing to go to trial against informed individuals, the lawyers already KNOW this, they hope none of us do IMO
  2. IMO before thinking of using choice of SOL laws (or not to) I'd suggest contacting a consumer attorney in your area, (most will do a free consultation, many over the phone) many states do not seem to honor them and only enforce the state SOL (best I can tell)
  3. Either one, sold or assigned Each and Every time, chain of custody may not be broken at any time "along the way" IF they cannot provide such evidence (and chances are near certain they cannot) then they can never prove standing to sue...... IMO Think of it like this, They have dragged you into court, saying you owe THEM $ HOW does the court know they have the right to collect any $ from You unless they can show from OC to THEM? (they can't know) Otherwise "I" (as an example) could just sue someone for some alleged debt and say I now own all the rights to said debt... Plaintiffs have much burden to prove their case, Defendants must learn what these are (IMO) Obviously this needs to be argued/ included in answer and or AD (amend if need be)
  4. They must show each and every CA assigned (including JDB) since it left the OC, the methods and rates the interest was calculated etc. IF they sue (how else can a court know the amount is "true and correct" OR the current entity has the right to collect )
  5. Exactly I believe that counters have real power but ONLY when totally researched, compiled correctly and VALID........
  6. They get well over 90% Default Judgments in their favor doing so, as long as these "affidavits" are not closely checked AND they're not contested I am sure they'll continue to use them unless they MUST stop...... sad but how it is IMO I have to believe using them is an easy to prove FDCPA violation so whenever they're suing for around $1K I'd bet a counter will shut them down ASAP
  7. IF this is the standard boilerplate affidavit from "MCM" it is without a doubt hearsay, Midland purchases charged off defaulted debt that IS their business; therefore they were Not around when the account was maintained much less created..........ALL they have done is bought a "pig in a sack" and Then have the audacity to claim "personal knowledge" and "accuracy of records" they have never had any other dealings with= hearsay totally
  8. The above IS binding precedence on your district judge.... from the Court Of Appeals , AND those (according to appellate judge) are the MIN requirements to grant SJ
  9. That is too stupid for words IMO (not On YOUR part - but the judges part) ignoring the ROE is certainly grounds to grant an appeal IF it comes to that , Midland doesn't like defending counterclaims IF you have time to or can get leave to amend I would certainly add ANY legitimate claims against them... IMO Being this "judge" ignores the ROE ..... In that case "I" would suspect they'll move for MSJ ......in which case (IF I'm correct) "I" would cite: [Bullock V WORLDWIDE ASSET PURCHASING,LLC BUYER OF NEXTCARD, INC., NO. 2006-CA-001757-MR] : a. “Plaintiff must produce a bill of sale listing the name and account number of the defendant;” b. “Plaintiff must produce a document specifically detailing how it reached the principal and interest amounts that it is suing for;” c. “and Plaintiff must produce documentary evidence that the defendant is in fact the person responsible for the debt”
  10. Admitting the "Affidavit" into evidence is TOTAL BS and clearly goes against the published ROCP and Rules of evidence (did you cite those when you MTS?) NO MCM "employee" can possibly have "personal knowledge of the creation or maintenance of the alleged debt" thus IT IS hearsay per the rules.....I'm no lawyer but I'm quite positive that alone is enough to have an appeal granted, even more so due to Brent V Midland which I believe is binding precedence concerning those "affidavits" not to mention the testimony of admitted "robo signing" that went on (> 400 signed per day NOT in view of the Notary who signed the oath that they witnessed same) this is fraud on the Court (at best) IMO (not a lawyer) "I" would try to get it not admitted again citing the ROCP and ROE of KY showing they're NOT allowed to be admitted, IF the judge still admits them, something is very much wrong IMO...
  11. What is needed here (now) is not what the original complaint says but what (exactly) the MSJ states ...... the idea is to attack EACH line of their MSJ and rebut it to defeat MSJ as any Genuine Issue of Material Fact WILL defeat it (and the evidence is to be viewed in light most favorable to the Non-Moving party e.g. YOU) However IF you fail to show by admissible evidence a Genuine Issue of Material Fact they will win as a matter of law