• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


OhioLawsuit last won the day on March 30 2013

OhioLawsuit had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About OhioLawsuit

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

557 profile views
  1. Has anyone heard of a collection agency called PAG or anything of that nature? They called my son today being totally abusive, trying to scare him about an old bank account that got overdrawn and then written off, telling him it's a felony, etc. Of course he was pretty upset, but I told him that they're just trying to scare him and get him to whip out a credit card for all the money they can get. They've threatened to sue for an amount that's double the amount of the original debt. When we tried to pin the guy down about who he was with, he didn't want to answer, rattled off a bunch of crap that sounded like Prefferred All Group and an address of 4581 Healthy Way or 4581 Chelsea way or something of that nature. The phone number was 866-877-7483. Ring any bells for anyone? The guy said he was in Ohio when questioned but I don't believe that either. Of course my son was so aggravated that he wasn't really listening to me, but now that he's calmed down I think he will. The call ended with the guy telling him they'd be filing suit. The thing is, he's not received any mail regarding this, no opportunity to verify the debt, etc. I told him not to worry about it. I kind of doubt they're even legit. They guy told him he was acting like a 5 year old, etc. I checked the local courts and no suit has been filed as of yet. Frankly, if it happens, and I doubt it will, I'll welcome the chance to beat another group of these assholes the same way I beat the Citibank suit from CACH. They can just bring it on.
  2. I just received a letter this week from the MO SOS saying that they are closing this case and electing to take no further action against the notary. No explanation whatsoever. I am getting ready to write to them and ask for an explanation. It's ridiculous. Turns out that BTKCA does have the exact same notary who claims to have this "hand problem." Whatever. Her "alleged" hand problem is no doubt caused by hours of robosigning! I'd say that the MO SOS simply doesn't want to mess with Citibank (assuming she is an employee of theirs). The signatures are just way too different for that not to be the case.
  3. As you mentioned, fighting does take a lot of time. I can't even imagine how many hours I spent reading, on forums, doing pleadings, etc. However, it is SOOOOOOO worth it when you win! It's the most amazing thing ever. Add me to the list of those who beat CACH. You can do it!
  4. CACH is beatable -- Citibank in this case. I think opposing counsel on my case was a bit more tenacious, but I was able to get a voluntary dismissal from them by challenging each and every piece of their "evidence" in a Motion in Limine.
  5. I'm not surprised at any of this. It's a Citibank affidavit that I filed the complaint with the Secretary of State of Missouri about the notary signature not matching the official signature on file. Still waiting for the outcome, but it's just one more sign of questionable practices on the part of Citibank and their affidavits.
  6. Well, at least you got objections. On one of my discovery requests that stupid attorney actually put that it was absurd! Well, I guess his whole lawsuit was absurd since he dismissed it!
  7. I only have a minute right now because I need to leave and get my dog to the vet, however, here is my Motion in Limine that I filed here in Ohio two weeks before trial. Shortly after that I received a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal from the other side. Granted, my case was against a JDB and not an OC, but still, there might be things in it you can use in your case. I will be glad to talk with you when I get back if you have any questions. I did not have to do a trial brief so I'm not that familiar with how that works. However, some of the cases below may be of use. I do know that in Ohio they don't have to produce an actual contract (if they issued the card and you used it and they can prove it) but I think they'd need a governing Cardmember Agreement or some kind of agreement to prove the interest rate they are charging you. Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Now comes Defendant XXXXXXXXXXX, a pro se litigant, and moves the Court that the following evidence should be excluded from admission in the above-referenced case for the following reasons: The Affidavit of XXXXXXXXXX, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint, (Exhibit A) should be excluded from submission due to an ongoing investigation into the authenticity of the signature of notary, XXXXXXXXX. After comparing the signature on the Affidavit to the official notary signature on file with the Secretary of State of Missouri and finding significant discrepancies, the Defendant has good reason to question the authenticity of the signature of the notary on the Affidavit. After such discovery, Defendant filed a complaint with the office of the Secretary of State of Missouri (Exhibit B ) and an investigation is currently ongoing per communication from the office of Jason Kander, Secretary of State for the State of Missouri (Exhibit C). Defendant suspects that the Affiant's signature may be a sign of robo-signing practices already proven against many credit card companies when it comes to their debt collection practices. The signature of the notary on the Affidavit also does not follow the rules of the State of Missouri when it comes to a notary's signature. Pages 22 and 23 of the "Missouri Notary Handbook" (Exhibit D) states that a notary may use initials for his or her first and middle names, but that the last name is to be written out in full. That is not the case with the notary's signature on this Affidavit. In the Affidavit, Affiant XXXXXXXX states that her statements are based on "personal knowledge" or "review of the business records of Citibank." XXXXXXXXXXXXX does not definitively prove that her statements were made on the required personal knowledge. They may have been made solely based on the review of business records. Also, the Affiant, XXXXXXXXX, offers no information in her affidavit as to how the records are compiled, what type of programming is used, how the information is entered and what safeguards are used. She also does not reference her training, background or knowledge regarding the use of the computers or how records are transmitted. See Chase Bank, USA v. Curren, 191 Ohio App.3d 507, 2010-Ohio-6596 and John Soliday Fin. Group, L.L.C. v. Pittenger, 190 Ohio App.3d 145, 2010-Ohio-4861. Also, the Affidavit fails to specifically identify, attach or reference the documents which were consulted by Ms. XXXXXXX. As such, it cannot authenticate any of the documents submitted in support of Plaintiff's case. See TPI Asset Mgt. v. Conrad-Eiford, 193 Ohio App.3d 38, 2011-Ohio-1405. The documents attached to the Complaint behind Ms. XXXXXX's Affidavit are exhibits of the Complaint and not exhibits of the Affidavit. Last, but not least, regarding the Affidavit, it appears to have been created in preparation for litigation, rather than at or near the time of the alleged sale of this account from Citibank to CACH LLC. The date of the alleged sale is August 23, 2011 while the date of the affidavit is August 13, 2012, one year after the alleged sale of this account and merely a few months before suit was filed. The next document that comes under scrutiny and should be excluded from evidence is the "Citibank Mastercard Cardmember Agreement" which is attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit B (Exhibit E). The Agreement submitted by Plaintiff and purported to control the account in question is an agreement governing only Citibank Canada accounts. The Defendant does not, and never has, lived in Canada or had a credit card associated with any Canadian company. Therefore, this Agreement should not be admissible as evidence. The submission of this Agreement attached to the Complaint also brings into question the trustworthiness of all of Plaintiff's records. Without a governing Agreement, it is impossible for the Court to ascertain the correctness of the calculation of interest for the account in question. While the credit card statements do contain an interest rate, there is no way to confirm that this is the correct interest rate governing the account in question without a valid and governing cardmember agreement. See Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v. Heidebrink, 2009-Ohio-2931. Similarly, the "Bill of Sale and Assignment" (Exhibit F) provided to Defendant during discovery is insufficient to prove CACH's ownership of the account in question. The Bill of Sale makes no specific reference to the name or account number of the account allegedly transferred in this transaction. The redacted document attached to the Bill of Sale as Exhibit 1 (Exhibit G) does not offer sufficient proof that the account was sold. Also, the date of birth contained in Exhibit 1, July XX, 19XX, and purported to be that of the Defendant is clearly not the Defendant's date of birth and can be proved by the Defendant. Once again, the Plaintiff's records veer off into the territory of untrustworthiness. While it is necessary to remove account numbers and social security numbers associated with the other accounts in the document submitted to the Court, there is a plethora of information regarding those other accounts that could have been included to add to the authenticity of this document as evidence. That information was not included. The fact that the redacted document shows no other information about the other accounts sold in the transaction lends an air of untrustworthiness. It's possible this document was simply created solely for the purpose of litigation and not kept as an ordinary part of business and therefore, should not be admissible as evidence. This document is neither an original or a true duplicate. The trustworthiness of the Plaintiff's information is once again called into question due to the fact that the Plaintiff states in it's Complaint that it should receive interest of 3.0% beginning as of September XX, 2011, five days after it allegedly made it's first demand upon Defendant. However, in Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant (No. 21) (Exhibit H), Plaintiff indicates that "On or about May XX, 2012, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a demand letter . . . indicating the transfer of ownership of the account" to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seems in doubt as to when a demand for payment was made. This is a discrepancy of eight months. Defendant also requests that the 13 credit card statements beginning with August 5, 2010 (Exhibit I) through August 5, 2011 (Exhibit J), provided to Defendant by Plaintiff during the course of discovery be excluded from evidence. Case law has shown that it is preferable that accounts begin with a balance of zero and show charges and interest rates accumlated along the way. These statements begin with a balance of $XXXXX and provide no evidence that this amount was true and correct, especially in light of no governing cardmember agreement. See Capital Fin. Credit, L.L.C. v. Mays, 191 Ohio App.3d 56, 2010-Ohio-4423. Last, but not least, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to admit the records of another business under the hearsay law. These records are not those of Plaintiff, but are purported to be the records of Citibank. Therefore, they should not be admitted under the business records exception of hearsay law. A business cannot simply take the records of another company, drop them into their own file and call them their own business records without proper authentication, which Plaintiff does not provide via testimony or affidavit. See Great Seneca Financial v. Felty, 170 Ohio App.3d 737, 2006-Ohio-6618. In light of the evidence submitted above, Defendant requests that the aforementioned documents be excluded from admission at trial.
  8. Reading and re-reading everything related to your case may seem like common sense, however, it wasn't to me at first. lol. In fact, my case didn't really come together until I started reading everything thoroughly over and over. I took notes. I highlighted stuff. That's when I started noticing all the discrepancies in the JDB "evidence." At first I just glanced at the documents and the pleadings or just kind of skimmed over them. It wasn't until I started reading in detail that things started jumping out. At first glance, I assumed the cardmember agreement attached to the Complaint was correct. Then I noticed it was a Canadian agreement. That didn't apply to this account at all. Then I realized in the Complaint they asked for interest starting from one date when they supposedly made their demand. However, their discovery to me stated a date eight months later. I noticed that the notary signature just seemed funky and compared it to the real notary signature on file. On the redacted account with the account information, my date of birth was incorrect, calling into question the trustworthiness of their records. I probably plodded along for about three months into the case before I really got down to business and started reading, highlighting and comparing everything. That's when the details that helped me get a voluntary dismissal became apparent. They just made so many mistakes that had I not read the documents closely would have escaped my notice. Read your documents and paperwork as many times as you have to until they start to make sense. Look for any little detail that may be wrong that you can attack. At first it was all just like gibberish. The more I read, the more sense it made and the more I caught their mistakes. It's worth the time and effort. It can make the difference between winning and losing. Also, read tons and tons of forum posts. Even if they don't seem to apply to your case, they may contain a comment or piece of wisdom that may help you. Oftentimes in other people's posts, I found things that steered me to investigate options regarding my own case or gave me ideas of things to attack. The more you read, the better your chances are to prevail. I'm back to add one more thing. If they cite cases to you in discovery or whatever that seem to support their side, realize that you can probably find case law that supports yours. Also, read those cases. When I got my discovery back I was crushed at first because these cases they referenced seemed to put them in the right. Thankfully, people here helped me find cases that supported my side. Never take anything the other side says at face value. They're hoping you will.
  9. Wow, that's a thought. Never thought of that. Wouldn't that be a whole can of worms? I never could find much out about the Affiant. Although actually I do think there was a court case online where the Affiant was mentioned as an employee of Citibank. Still, that doesn't mean her name wasn't used on an affidavit created by CACH.
  10. Well the additional violations are probably a good thing, but the re-education is disappointing. It's not hard to grasp the concept of notarizing documents in the right manner the first time around.
  11. Wow. lol. I totally agree that any way you can chip away at their affidavit or anything else is the way to go.
  12. Wow, that seems like a long time, but I suppose they wanted to err on the side of caution. Hoping it goes more quickly here, but I guess it takes as long as it takes. What repercussions were there for the notary when it was all said and done?
  13. Still waiting. I think I received the letter about the investigation at the end of February. They said they have to give the notary 30 days to respond. I would hope things should be wrapping up soon. I may actually just give them a call this week to check the status. I will definitely let you know the outcome. I think it's a great and pretty easy way to get an affidavit thrown out if the outcome of the investigation shows that it's really not the notary's signature or is improperly notarized. Plus I would hope it might open a whole can of worms as to what Citibank (in this case) is really doing.
  14. Just got my Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in the mail. What a happy day!!! For more details, see this post: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319761-hammer-away-and-win-your-case-alternatively-called-%E2%80%9Cwhy-coltfan-is-my-hero%E2%80%9D/
  15. The thing is, at this point, I've met with no requirement to have a handwriting expert. The Secretary of State of Missouri who governs notaries is investigating the issue of the notary's signature. I would think a ruling by them that there was fraud or that it wasn't legally notarized would be sufficient and spare a need for me to find and pay a handwriting expert. Of course, like I've said, I'm fighting them on many fronts other than this, I just think that getting the affidavit thrown out this way, and hopefully getting the notary's notary revoked, etc. would be great. Also, no specific documents were referenced in the affidavit. In Ohio, I've found case law that says that specific documents must be mentioned in order for them to be authenticated by the affidavit. I'm fortunate that there have been numerous mistakes on their part in this case.