Jump to content

Should I be asking the OC for proof or just the Attorney?


Recommended Posts

I am being sued in General District Court, by an Attorney who claims to have proper standing to represent the Original Creditor.


Defendant (me)

Plantiff (OC)

Attorney (so and so law firm)

I have been hounding the attorney to substantiate "proper standing" to represent OC, and hounding the attorney to provide the original contract.

The Attorney has fallen silent as I hoped.

Do I need to hound the OC for it to????

I want to prove that the attorney couldn't provide these things. I don't want to screw myself by contacting the OC only to have them provide it!

Thanks for any thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response, but my question remains.

I don't know if the attorney has proper standing to represent the OC or is perpetrating a fraud upon the court since they refuse to provide any proof of a client/attorney relationship that proves that they have proper standing to represent the OC. Which is good, because there is some case law out there which says I am entitled to this.

In this case, I want to shy away from discovery for the time being and continue with private requests to avoid the potential fudiciary interests of the judge.

So for all practical purposes let's pretend that the attorney does have grounds to represent the OC.

If the premise of this lawsuit is to continue with private discovery, have I made a mistake by avoiding the OC?

This is not to say that I won't consider public discovery later, but as for now I am going to stick to my game plan.

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.