Watched youngman get slamdunked in court recently.

[LostMind]

Citi v. John Doe in State Court of Georgia

At a hearing for motion to dismiss by Def. he got put under oath by the judge and made to acknowledge the account but disputed the amount and claimed he did not receive statements because kids were stealing mail from the mail boxes.

Then it was time for the Plaintiff Attorney to start at which time he began showing the def. copy's of statements asking him to acknowledge them which he did on most but claimed he had no memory of some.

The judge was not impressed and ruled judgment for the Plaintiff.

What could he have done differently in court to prevent the slam dunk?

a. Could he have refused to make sworn testimony for some reason or rule?

b. Could he have refused to comment on the statements because they are hearsay.

What about his disputing the amount, it looks like in all these cases that any acknowledgment of the account gets a judgment against you without regard to it being the correct amount.

Are all of the great Affirmative Defenses we answer with going to be enough to cast doubt on the Plaintiff if we properly plead them at a hearing like this?

BTW- I don't think I have seen one Pro-se in court that had a clue what they doing much less have any knowledge gained from these boards, its really sad and painful to watch some times.

[RebelLady]

This is a great thread! Something to make you stop and think and wonder what you would have done under these circumstances.

I can't wait to read the responses...it should be interesting...

RL

[Guest usctrojanalum]

and claimed he did not receive statements because kids were stealing mail from the mail boxes.

i lol'd in real life at this part. need to watch out for those neighborhood kids stealing credit card statements!

[FL4answer58]

"He got put under oath by the judge and made to acknowledge the account but disputed the amount”

What was the Def reason for asking MTD? Not enough info - the Def must have had reason to believe the Plaintiff lacked material evidence.

For example if it was JDB - Assignment,

"It appears to be my name and address, your honor - Yes."

If your defense is 'the account is not mine' say so. But the individual here did nothing more then admitted account - or so I guess - from the scenario.

The rest of the defense depends not on the whether you admit or deny an account but whether or not they can prove their claim and that they have a legal right to that claim.

Maybe its - SOL, wrong venue, identity theft, no assignment, etc, …

IMOYH - someone stole my defense!

Edited October 8, 2010 by FL4answer58

[Massive]

Citi v. John Doe in State Court of Georgia

At a hearing for motion to dismiss by Def. he got put under oath by the judge and made to acknowledge the account but disputed the amount and claimed he did not receive statements because kids were stealing mail from the mail boxes.

Then it was time for the Plaintiff Attorney to start at which time he began showing the def. copy's of statements asking him to acknowledge them which he did on most but claimed he had no memory of some.

The judge was not impressed and ruled judgment for the Plaintiff.

What could he have done differently in court to prevent the slam dunk?

a. Could he have refused to make sworn testimony for some reason or rule?

b. Could he have refused to comment on the statements because they are hearsay.

What about his disputing the amount, it looks like in all these cases that any acknowledgment of the account gets a judgment against you without regard to it being the correct amount.

Are all of the great Affirmative Defenses we answer with going to be enough to cast doubt on the Plaintiff if we properly plead them at a hearing like this?

BTW- I don't think I have seen one Pro-se in court that had a clue what they doing much less have any knowledge gained from these boards, its really sad and painful to watch some times.

Copies of statements, laugh out loud, don't prove that the alleged Plaintiff, Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. currently own the right to collect on the debt. You need to understand securitization through self study and hit them with it. I was abused by the Law Firms years ago when I was ignorant of the truth. These same Law Firms dismiss. dismiss, dismiss when I have a chance to help alleged debtors nowadays and I help everyone that I can. I'm still bitter about the long standing debt collection deceptions and the courts seemingly going along with it as long as the alleged debtors have no clue what is going on and how to defend the credit card suits. You defend properly and the judges hands are tied as are the Law Firm debt collectors. Then when they try that (copy of every statement crap) you can defeat them.

[LostMind]

i lol'd in real life at this part. need to watch out for those neighborhood kids stealing credit card statements!

LOL, it's funny now but when he said it in court I remember thinking OMG someone probably told him this was a good defense and now he's going to pay the price for it. By that time i think he knew he was toast.

To the Judges credit he did ask the Def. if he had a Attorney, did he plan on getting an Attorney and he understood if someone was having money trouble that they could not afford an attorney. But that just preceded the slam dunk, I'm thinking I am always going to claim (truthfully)that I am interviewing Attorneys to take over my case in the near future, that may help prevent the slam dunk if nothing else is going right.

[LostMind]

"He got put under oath by the judge and made to acknowledge the account but disputed the amount”

What was the Def reason for asking MTD? Not enough info - the Def must have had reason to believe the Plaintiff lacked material evidence.

For example if it was JDB - Assignment,

"It appears to be my name and address, your honor - Yes."

If your defense is 'the account is not mine' say so. But the individual here did nothing more then admitted account - or so I guess - from the scenario.

The rest of the defense depends not on the whether you admit or deny an account but whether or not they can prove their claim and that they have a legal right to that claim.

Maybe its - SOL, wrong venue, identity theft, no assignment, etc, …

IMOYH - someone stole my defense!

This was suppose to be the OC so I understand this can be a difficult fight but I would think someone with knowledge from these boards could get past a simple hearing.

I printed the case after court and his MTD only consisted of (condensed)

A. P has failed to provide proof

B. D does not admit liability of being in debt

C. P has used dishonorable means in which to try and get me to pay this debt

and that was about it, thats all he had.

Edited October 8, 2010 by LostMind

[LostMind]

Copies of statements, laugh out loud, don't prove that the alleged Plaintiff, Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. currently own the right to collect on the debt. You need to understand securitization through self study and hit them with it. I was abused by the Law Firms years ago when I was ignorant of the truth. These same Law Firms dismiss. dismiss, dismiss when I have a chance to help alleged debtors nowadays and I help everyone that I can. I'm still bitter about the long standing debt collection deceptions and the courts seemingly going along with it as long as the alleged debtors have no clue what is going on and how to defend the credit card suits. You defend properly and the judges hands are tied as are the Law Firm debt collectors. Then when they try that (copy of every statement crap) you can defeat them.

Massive, I am on board with the securitization defense and I thank you for sharing that, it looks to be a great defense. That seems to be something that could force an early dismissal and avoid the fate of the def in this case.

So in this defense are the defendants admitting they had an account but that even the OC is not the true owner of the debt any longer because the receivable has been sold off to the Master Trust and securitized as an asset backed security and the Master Trust is not a party to the suit? The OC is just the servicer at this point and has no right to collections?

[FL4answer58]

You need to understand securitization through self study and hit them with it. You defend properly and the judges hands are tied as are the Law Firm debt collectors. Then when they try that (copy of every statement crap) you can defeat them.

Massive what is the 'securitization defense' exactly?

An 'unjust enrichment' defense or 'produce the note/assignment'.

Could you explain, please?

Massive -

Not to hijack this thread at all, but I am very curious about the securitization defense you mention … Any insight on this would be appreciated by me and I am sure other individuals.

I'm sorry - but this is not a defense. This is a conspiracy theory - It's sort of like saying you don't need to pay taxes because it's unconstitutional. I don't know anyone who's won with it in court. If I'm wrong - please show me some case law.

Like others....I'd like more info.....attempt to understand the applicable use and law. Could you lay it out for us?

"Any insight on this would be appreciated by me and I am sure other individuals."

Edited October 8, 2010 by FL4answer58

[SingleDadJames]

Massive what is the 'securitization defense' exactly?

An 'unjust enrichment' defense or 'produce the note/assignment'.

Could you explain, please?

Like others....I'd like more info.....attempt to understand the applicable use and law. Could you lay it out for us?

"Any insight on this would be appreciated by me and I am sure other individuals."

Yes MASSIVE, I'd like more info too. I don't mind reading up on my own and I understand you can't spoon feed it to dozens of board members here...but pointing us to specific sites or other sources can cut hours off of our research time!

Of course feel free to PM the info if need be.

Thanks for all your help here in the forums!

[Massive]

Conspiracy theory my a$$. No case law due to constant Plaintiff dismissals.

No, you do not admit to the alleged debt. Why would you when they never prove they even own the debt, original creditor or junk debt buyer.

While you mention conspiracy theories Jessie The Body Ventura has another season starting up, PAY Attention to it.

[FL4answer58]

Conspiracy theory my a$$. No case law due to constant Plaintiff dismissals.

No, you do not admit to the alleged debt. Why would you when they never prove they even own the debt, original creditor or junk debt buyer.

While you mention conspiracy theories Jessie The Body Ventura has another season starting up, PAY Attention to it.

Massive - I meant no disrespect - appreciate your posts, knowledge and input....

Just trying to get a grasp - wrap around the substantive law we would apply in this defense. Maybe no case law, but conventional law does indicate collectors can 'prove it' according to legislative rules and civil court procedure.

Could you point us in right direction – or provide the basis of argument for us to research.

'securitization defense' is broad - not much available on this subject out there...could you help?

We are interested in your idea.

----------------------------------------

I read and searched ‘Lost Horizons’ for the term securitization. No matches were found. I searched for any association to debt portfolios’ and the SEC in regards to asset trading and foreign assignments – no matches were found.

"Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate."

Is the ‘securitization defense’ a part of the tax debate ... "at all those tax refunds" from big debt buyers?

Edited October 8, 2010 by FL4answer58

[Massive]

Massive - I meant no disrespect - appreciate your posts, knowledge and input....

Just trying to get a grasp - wrap around the substantive law we would apply in this defense. Maybe no case law, but conventional law does indicate collectors can 'prove it' according to legislative rules and civil court procedure.

Could you point us in right direction – or provide the basis of argument for us to research.

'securitization defense' is broad - not much available on this subject out there...could you help?

We are interested in your idea.

----------------------------------------

I read and searched ‘Lost Horizons’ for the term securitization. No matches were found. I searched for any association to debt portfolios’ and the SEC in regards to asset trading and foreign assignments – no matches were found.

"Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate."

Is the ‘securitization defense’ a part of the tax debate ... "at all those tax refunds" from big debt buyers?

Admin said something about conspiracy theory and used the income tax analogy, That has nothing to do with Securitization, I researched Citibanks credit card securitization schemes and put it all together. It's not my only affirmative defense, but is highly effective in cases I've dealt with. I have the exact URL at home and I'll PM it to you tomorrow.

[Massive]

Massive - I meant no disrespect - appreciate your posts, knowledge and input....

Just trying to get a grasp - wrap around the substantive law we would apply in this defense. Maybe no case law, but conventional law does indicate collectors can 'prove it' according to legislative rules and civil court procedure.

Could you point us in right direction – or provide the basis of argument for us to research.

'securitization defense' is broad - not much available on this subject out there...could you help?

We are interested in your idea.

----------------------------------------

I read and searched ‘Lost Horizons’ for the term securitization. No matches were found. I searched for any association to debt portfolios’ and the SEC in regards to asset trading and foreign assignments – no matches were found.

"Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate."

Is the ‘securitization defense’ a part of the tax debate ... "at all those tax refunds" from big debt buyers?

One more point, credit card issuers NEVER follow the law in regards to proper notice of rate changes or other changes in the alleged agreement as required by LAW.

[FL4answer58]

Admin said something about conspiracy theory and used the income tax analogy, That has nothing to do with Securitization, I researched Citibanks credit card securitization schemes and put it all together. It's not my only affirmative defense, but is highly effective in cases I've dealt with. I have the exact URL at home and I'll PM it to you tomorrow.

Have you read any of the new pieces recently published by consumer journalists on;

The new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the CFPA Act (CFPAA) establishes a new agency to oversee consumer protection in financial services now has jurisdiction over debt collectors and debt buyers. New laws may come out of this legislature concerning the regulatory controls of debt buyers. There is a lot of speculation on the SEC and securities in the debt buyer markets.

In support of Massives and the 'securitization defense' argument READ:

Section, Securitization of credit card debt http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/debt-o14.shtml

Securitization: The Biggest Rip-off Ever http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13863

Unfortunately - much of it is more speculative then substantive.

Edited October 8, 2010 by FL4answer58

[admin]

Unfortunately - much of it is more speculative then substantive.

Pretty much my point.

[admin]

The judge was not impressed and ruled judgment for the Plaintiff.

What could he have done differently in court to prevent the slam dunk?

a. Could he have refused to make sworn testimony for some reason or rule?

b. Could he have refused to comment on the statements because they are hearsay.

I think a motion to strike the evidence based on lack of authentication or personal knowledge was the way to go.

He did basically admit the evidence was correct - if I were the judge, I would have ruled similarly.

[KentWA]

Unfortunately there is sparse information available to truely utilize this defense. Google search results point to sites discussing mostly tax scams and fraud. As of yet I have not been able to find any case law even margenally related to this other than Mortgage cases where the note is at issue.

However the article did lead me to something else. That being that in Utah at least if a contract violates the Usury laws the court must strike the entire contract. The only industry that can escape that is a federally chartered bank. A JDB is not a federally chartered bank and their cases may have one more achillies heal.

[LostMind]

However the article did lead me to something else. That being that in Utah at least if a contract violates the Usury laws the court must strike the entire contract.

We need a way to show that that the securitzation of the credit card backed assets no longer protects them from Usury laws afforded to National Banks.

[LostMind]

Heres something I missed the first time I looked at it, relating to the original post.

Defendant did not answer request for admissions and Plaintiff filed for MSJ back in June. Somehow this guy got a hearing for his lame MTD filed well after the other sides MSJ.

Now I understand why the judge was implying this guy really needed a lawyer.

Sorry I missed that the first time because that kind of shines a different light on how he was treated. Compared to other courts I hear of on here it seems as though the local courts are fair.

[TBirdLady42]

I've found a site that discusses some aspects of the securitization issue. It doesn't provide solid case law, but is a blog between academics of various credit issues - with securitization being one of the topics they discuss...

Here's a link to the blog - I found the discussion fascinating...

www.creditslips.org

[FL4answer58]

One more point, credit card issuers NEVER follow the law in regards to proper notice of rate changes or other changes in the alleged agreement as required by LAW.

I would say .....this has merit........and IS supported by law.

Massive I beleive your statement KEY.

"Credit card issuers [often don't] follow the law in regards to proper notice (period.)... in the alleged agreement as required by LAW."

JDBs ... NEVER.

Edited October 10, 2010 by FL4answer58

[Savoir]

I've found a site that discusses some aspects of the securitization issue. It doesn't provide solid case law, but is a blog between academics of various credit issues - with securitization being one of the topics they discuss...

Here's a link to the blog - I found the discussion fascinating...

www.creditslips.org

I realize that these blog sites turn over articles VERY fast but with the link you provided I can't find the article on securitization that you mention.

Name of the article please?

[Zulator]

I think I understand the principle behind what he is talking about? Basically there was no consideration on their part since the "money" they loaned you did not exist. But, using a so******t website to back your claims won't get you very far.

[Savoir]

I think I understand the principle behind what he is talking about? Basically there was no consideration on their part since the "money" they loaned you did not exist. But, using a so******t website to back your claims won't get you very far.

I'd just like to see what the controversy is all about.