usagi555

Members
  • Content Count

    2,003
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

usagi555 last won the day on October 1 2012

usagi555 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

91 Excellent

About usagi555

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Profile Fields

  • Location
    NM

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. usagi555

    /conn's/

    I did do a google search, and got conflicting information. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.
  2. usagi555

    /conn's/

    I'm 100% debt free. These calls are most likely skip tracing. If I do record the next call, it will be NSFW x 9001 though.
  3. usagi555

    /conn's/

    I'm a DIY kind of guy, and I don't view this as serious, so it's not worth the effort to sue for me. Besides, I was told that the filing fees for Federal went up to $500. I got sued by Citi a few years ago, kicked their asses in court, netted a dismissal with prejudice, then got sent back to collections. This is nothing, and I'll be happy with being abusive on the phone. Which collection agency it is, or if it is in house is what I don't know and was hoping somebody had some info.
  4. usagi555

    /conn's/

    Does anybody know anything about a presumed collection agency that shows up on the caller ID, sometimes under the name /conn's/ and other times under conn's? I've been getting a call from them about every other day, and I haven't been answering. Finally, today, somebody else picked up the phone, and said that the woman on the other end was rude and asking for somebody who doesn't live here. I sniffed around, based on the numbers that had been calling, and a few people were saying that this particular group is somehow related to Allied Interstate, and the call smacked of skip tracing. Par
  5. I've also heard some of the prison stuff called pruno. Either way, knowing what they have to work with, I don't think I'd want to drink it unless it was distilled first.
  6. Yup, my neighbor's elm decided to drop its seeds right when the wind was blowing towards the garden, and it's a big elm, with lots and lots of seeds. Elms are not a tree, they're a friggin' weed! I've pulled at least 1,000 of them up within the past 5 or so days. On the brighter side, it looks like my chile transplants are finally starting to take root. The corn and beans are coming up like crazy. There are 3 varieties of corn thus far: Painted Mountain (flour,) Navajo Blue Corn (flour) and Country Gentleman (sweet). I also have three kinds of beans, pinto, anasazi and tepary, all of
  7. I have more than just an alleged contract being dissolved to throw at them. I'm speculating that the bank does not want this case to be public, because should I be successful, it will open them up to consumer lawsuits for every single CC suit that they file against consumers. And I have a case where I can get a lot more than strict liability damages. I have 2 torts that the judge let stand in what was a rather scathing (at them, not me) opinion. I've gone beyond consumer protection law on this. (P.S. The arbitration clause they are using has no survivability clause in it.)
  8. Well, seeing that, assuming that everything you've put in that motion is correct or at least arguably so, I would worry a lot less about it. You might not win on the motion, but I don't see that as being frivolous or being submitted in bad faith.
  9. Here is a thread for people to post about whether or not their states toll the statute of limitations during pending actions in courts. I'm in New Mexico and have never had to deal with such a question, but did just stumble across this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1671844755915110813&q=res+judicata+merits+voluntary+dismissal+with+prejudice&hl=en&as_sdt=4,32 In deciding this case, we must necessarily decide whether the statute of limitations is tolled by a suit which is dismissed without prejudice, or whether we treat a dismissal without prejudice as actually le
  10. The attorney could be bluffing. Or not. Nobody here can say without knowing the procedural history of the case. If you're just trying to strike right off of the start, your motion will fail. I don't see the courts imposing sanctions, but it very well could. Now then, if you've hammered the affidavit with discovery, you may have something.
  11. 1) From what you described, it sounds as though ARS is not a JDB, but I'm not aware of how they operate, so take that as you will. 2) Citibank sued me, but don't worry. You're thinking about this stuff now. I was totally unprepared when they sued me, and I won. And things are going to get much more difficult over the next few months for Citi when it sues people.
  12. And that's basically my story - that any alleged agreement between us evaporated the moment they dismissed with prejudice. The agreement is flat out not enforceable and does not apply to me, and if they don't believe me, I'll sign a waiver agreeing not to use SOL as an affirmative defense and only use Res Judicata whilest they sue me again in state court.
  13. No, but they dismissed, then they tried to continue the love affair with me when they sent me back to a brand spankin' new collection agency. I managed to talk the CA into never contacting me again on the phone. No C&Ds, no validations, just plain bullying the debt collectors in such a way that they were actually scared of me. I'm debt free and would not ever do business with any such entity after seeing how they treat people.
  14. It bars the US District Courts from directly reviewing state court decisions. I've already argued against, and won, when they tried to claim that my claims were compulsory counter-claims, i.e. they wanted to make it about the validity of the underlying alleged debt from the previous case and, well, technically, and legally, they're wrong about that. In my state, you don't get to dismiss your case with prejudice unless you ask the opposing party if the motion is opposed first, so in that sense, it was mutual, but because my RCP mandate it. Going back to the compulsory counter-claims issue, t
  15. LOLOL, I'm sorry for laughing, but one of the defendants is using rooker-feldman as an affirmative defense. The irony of that working would be delicious! (But I don't think it would work.)