Back from Trial

[figures2000]

just got back from my trial... both the lawyer and the wittiness was there ... the trial happened. I objected to all there Evidence. Objected to the hearsay rule on the Affidavit of debt... but it was still allowed in. I objected that at no time was the Affidavit signer there for any acts between me or Bank of America...I think he did say something about the Affidavit having no other docs with it or refering to any...I objected to there Credit card statements as not Authenticated... they still allowed some of the statements in because of there witness.. the Fleet bank ones was not allowed it... the Bill of sale was not allowed in as Evidence but the judge said he would take it under advisement....I gave him some case law NORFOLK FINANCIAL CORPORATION vs. NADINE MAZARD... to support my claim that they don't have valid proof they own the account. the JDB Lawyer said that was no good.. The Judge said he knows mostly contract laws and not JDB Ones. he said there was no credit card agreement included and on the statements that were allowed in there was no payments made shown.. he did not rule on the case and said you will get a ruling within 30 days in the mail

I am not sure what to think.. Basicly the Affidavit of debt and 4 statements was allowed into Evidence.. I thought by the bill of sale not being allowed in it looked good

Edited October 15, 2010 by figures2000

[Massive]

Very interesting. I don't know how the judge could rule against you as the pleadings of the Plaintiff are insufficient as no authenticated evidence of a bill of sale is in existence. I would expect a ruling in your favor and be shocked if the judge rules for the Plaintiff. The affidavit lacked foundation and should have been ruled inadmissible. Let us know when the judge makes his determination and submits his ruling.

[figures2000]

The judge did say something about to Affidavit not refering the any other paper work..the JDB lawyer made a big deal about the 2 fleet bank statements not being allowed in.. when he allowed in the Affidavit.. I stated at no time was the signer of the Affidavit a witness to any acts or creation of records between me or bank of america... I also did question there witness... I could see by the Judges face there look to be doubt and then he asked about there being no credit card agreement and also the statements not have any payments on them.. and the JDB lawyer said the statements not allowed in shows payments

not sure how they can win off a affidavit and 4 statements.. The statements only prove I had a account at one time and I dont see how a affidavit Alone can prove Ownership without Supporting Docs.. but we will see.. if I lose I could appeal or File for Bankruptcy

Edited October 15, 2010 by figures2000

[BV80]

The judge didn't rule against you. That's good.

Who was the witness?

Don't give up. It's not over yet.

If the ruling in 30 days is not in your favor, you will still have options. Go ahead and study your court rules again. If it doesn't go in your favor, do you file a Motion to Reconsider or an appeal? Be prepared just in case.

Not to defend judges, but judges don't know everything. Your judge admitted that. If you have to file a motion, you may have to be prepared to educate your judge. Research case law in your area AND in your District Court of Appeals concerning affidavits.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

he said there was no credit card agreement included and on the statements that were allowed in there was no payments made shown.

I think the bolded is huge for you. I've always said on this board if they can provide statements and copies of checks/payments they received and posted for those statements the defendants in these cases are smoked. Since they could not even get those admitted I would be confident in this turning out well in your favor.

[figures2000]

The judge didn't rule against you. That's good.

Who was the witness?

Don't give up. It's not over yet.

If the ruling in 30 days is not in your favor, you will still have options. Go ahead and study your court rules again. If it doesn't go in your favor, do you file a Motion to Reconsider or an appeal? Be prepared just in case.

Not to defend judges, but judges don't know everything. Your judge admitted that. If you have to file a motion, you may have to be prepared to educate your judge. Research case law in your area AND in your District Court of Appeals concerning affidavits.

the witness worked for the Plaintiff and because of his knowledge with Boa... They allowed the BOA statements in and also the Affidavit in.. I did question the Witness and said so you do not have actual knowleadge of the creation of this account other then the records of the Plaintiff.. he said yes

The Judge was great... I thought he did the best he could.. he talked about Contract laws and How the statements allowed into evidence show no record of payments and also there was no credit card agreement also the Affidavit did not refer to any other Docs I thought that favored me.. and for a min I thought he was going to dismiss it.. but he said 30 days

[figures2000]

I think the bolded is huge for you. I've always said on this board if they can provide statements and copies of checks/payments they received and posted for those statements the defendants in these cases are smoked. Since they could not even get those admitted I would be confident in this turning out well in your favor.

Thanks USC... that would explain why the JDB lawyer kept pushing the Judge to have those 2 Fleet bank statements added into Evidence he kept fighting and the Judge said no... the witness was not qualified to Auth the statements from Fleetbank.. and one of the fleet bank statements showed a payment.. that was the only statement

Edited October 15, 2010 by figures2000

[orakle]

It's always a good sign for a pro se litigant if the judge elects to take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling after trial.

[figures2000]

It's always a good sign for a pro se litigant if the judge elects to take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling after trial.

I sure hope so Orakle.. I did the best I could... it was kind Funny the Court Clerk was always giving me these smiles.. like I was doing a great job and I was a nervoius Wreak... but her smiles help me stay the course

[RebelLady]

I think this is all great news for you! You did a great job and you should take a breath and congratulate yourself.

I think the fact that the statements showed no payments (debits) or charges (other than the late and overlimit charges put on the account by the OC) qualifies as 'no usage' (other than the bank using the account). If usage means acceptance of the cc agreement (which they didn't include either), then they truly can't prove whose account this really is or that you or anybody else accepted the terms and conditions stated in the cc agreement.

I also think that the judge disallowing the bill of sale is a good sign. That sure makes it hard for the plaintiff to prove they have standing to sue...

Please keep us informed and let us know the judge's final decision and again,

GOOD JOB!!!

xdancex

RL

[Massive]

I think the bolded is huge for you. I've always said on this board if they can provide statements and copies of checks/payments they received and posted for those statements the defendants in these cases are smoked. Since they could not even get those admitted I would be confident in this turning out well in your favor.

You can provide statements from 0 to the ending balance, you can provide canceled checks from payments, you can provide a generic "agreement" but if you can't prove you OWN the debt, you should not prevail. So your theory is inaccurate. In this case, the JDB's Attorney and witness didn't prove squat. Best evidence rule says the Defendant will prevail in this case. Also Plaintiff's never do follow disclosure laws during the life of the credit card agreement in these debt collection cases. That judge won't find for the junk debt buyer, the evidence is not there. Defendant objected to the 'Affidavit" and rightly so due to the fact that it lacked foundation and the judge even pointed that out. Excellent job objecting by the Defendant.

[ADSOFT]

You can provide statements from 0 to the ending balance, you can provide canceled checks from payments, you can provide a generic "agreement" but if you can't prove you OWN the debt, you should not prevail. So your theory is inaccurate. In this case, the JDB's Attorney and witness didn't prove squat. Best evidence rule says the Defendant will prevail in this case. Also Plaintiff's never do follow disclosure laws during the life of the credit card agreement in these debt collection cases. That judge won't find for the junk debt buyer, the evidence is not there. Defendant objected to the 'Affidavit" and rightly so due to the fact that it lacked foundation and the judge even pointed that out. Excellent job objecting by the Defendant.

That's true, if they can't prove they OWN the debt, then they have no case. Unjust Enrichment wouldn't apply because they haven't proved they own the debt.

[BV80]

Unjust Enrichment wouldn't apply because they haven't proved they own the debt.

I think that's the very reason unjust enrichment WOULD apply. When you try to collect money on something you don't own, you're unjustly trying to enrich yourself.

[BoscoMama]

I hope it doesn't take too long for the judge's answer and it is in your favor. If the judge rules against you, it does seem like there are several reasons to have the judgement vacated. Good luck.

[figures2000]

You can provide statements from 0 to the ending balance, you can provide canceled checks from payments, you can provide a generic "agreement" but if you can't prove you OWN the debt, you should not prevail. So your theory is inaccurate. In this case, the JDB's Attorney and witness didn't prove squat. Best evidence rule says the Defendant will prevail in this case. Also Plaintiff's never do follow disclosure laws during the life of the credit card agreement in these debt collection cases. That judge won't find for the junk debt buyer, the evidence is not there. Defendant objected to the 'Affidavit" and rightly so due to the fact that it lacked foundation and the judge even pointed that out. Excellent job objecting by the Defendant.

thanks everyone... the statements allowed show nothing more then I had a account at one time... and I dont see how the Affidvit of debt alone can prove ownership.. and also even though the statements was allowed in.. I still objected to them on the grounds they was not Authenticated from the Originator.. but the judge allowed them because of the Witness

the term lacking Foundation. what does that mean no Supporting Documents to go with it???

Crap that means I screwed up and should of Objected the Affidavit of debt for lacking Foundation and maybe it would of never been allowed in????

the judge asked me if I had any other objection on the affidavit.. I only said at no time was the signer of the affidavit witness to any creation of documents between myself and bank of America

[figures2000]

Also when I left the courthouse I saw the witness get into a 2010 Camero... not sure if it was a rental... but it made me sick... these scumbags take money from middle to lower class people who are pushing just to get by in life... Carma is a bitch sumbags

[Massive]

thanks everyone... the statements allowed show nothing more then I had a account at one time... and I dont see how the Affidvit of debt alone can prove ownership.. and also even though the statements was allowed in.. I still objected to them on the grounds they was not Authenticated from the Originator.. but the judge allowed them because of the Witness

the term lacking Foundation. what does that mean no Supporting Documents to go with it???

Crap that means I screwed up and should of Objected the Affidavit of debt for lacking Foundation and maybe it would of never been allowed in????

the judge asked me if I had any other objection on the affidavit.. I only said at no time was the signer of the affidavit witness to any creation of documents between myself and bank of America

The judge was waiting for the "lack of foundation" objection which would have blown their case out of the water, but still, you did a great job objecting otherwise and pointing out that their claim lacked authentication of debt ownership. In closing, Affidavits must include documentary evidence of what it says, meaning the records referred to must be included with the affidavit (all the records) or the affidavit is subject to objection and being thrown out for lack of foundation. Remember ALWAYS use lack of Standing as an affirmative defense when ownership has NOT been established.

[figures2000]

The judge was waiting for the "lack of foundation" objection which would have blown their case out of the water, but still, you did a great job objecting otherwise and pointing out that their claim lacked authentication of debt ownership. In closing, Affidavits must include documentary evidence of what it says, meaning the records referred to must be included with the affidavit (all the records) or the affidavit is subject to objection and being thrown out for lack of foundation. Remember ALWAYS use lack of Standing as an affirmative defense when ownership has NOT been established.

Arrrr.. my bad.. if I end up losing the case.. But I dont think I will.. can I appeal and use the Lack of Foundation claim on the Affidavit???? and have judgement vacated

on my courts website it says I can Appeal within 10 days of getting the written notice of the Judges decision but it costs $125 and it also says I can file a motion to vacate the judgement for good reason

Edited October 16, 2010 by figures2000

[Massive]

I think that's the very reason unjust enrichment WOULD apply. When you try to collect money on something you don't own, you're unjustly trying to enrich yourself.

Use this as a "learning experience" BV80. I believe ADSOFT made reference to the Plaintiff's accusation that Defendant experienced an unjust enrichment by not paying for charges to the credit card account. Although I may be wrong that is how I took it.

[Massive]

Arrrr.. my bad.. if I end up losing the case.. But I dont think I will.. can I appeal and use the Lack of Foundation claim on the Affidavit???? and have judgement vacated

on my courts website it says I can Appeal within 10 days of getting the written notice of the Judges decision but it costs $125 and it also says I can file a motion to vacate the judgement for good reason

I'm confused here. Did the judge not throw out the alleged bill of sale??!! If so the judge lacks statutory authority to grant judgment to the Plaintiff as a matter of law. No statute allows the judge to grant judgment to an entity that has failed to prove that they own the alleged debt. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There are default judgments all over the Country in the books that could be challenged as even a default judgment must be "Proved up" if challenged.

[figures2000]

I'm confused here. Did the judge not throw out the alleged bill of sale??!! If so the judge lacks statutory authority to grant judgment to the Plaintiff as a matter of law. No statute allows the judge to grant judgment to an entity that has failed to prove that they own the alleged debt. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There are default judgments all over the Country in the books that could be challenged as even a default judgment must be "Proved up" if challenged.

I thought it was funny when they tried to enter the bill of sale... I object and my reasons and I saw the look at there witnesses face lol scumbag.. he did not enter the bill of sale.. he said he would take it underadvisement I guess to see what other docs they had.. but they had nothing else besides statements.. and toward the end of the trial he said he did not enter it... when the trial was over they was gone boom they beat me out of the courthouse.. I saw them talking on the street corner.. once I got caught up to them.. they went each others ways scumbags

Edited October 16, 2010 by figures2000

[BV80]

I thought it was funny when they tried to enter the bill of sale... I object and my reasons and I saw the look at there witnesses face lol scumbag

Great job!

[RebelLady]

I think its kinda strange, too, that the judge would not allow their bill of sale yet still didn't dismiss.

It seems to me like once he/she threw out the bill of sale and didn't allow it, that blew the plaintiff's case out of the water. Especially since they didn't prove 'usage' (not even a payment) on the statement. If they don't own the debt and can't prove the card belonged to the defendant (or anybody else)...why couldn't/didn't the judge just dismiss right then?

It looks like the court systems in this country like to give OCs and JDBs every opportunity to prevail (no matter what the defendant does or says)

RL

[DCusr]

This sound promising. Glad to hear. Is there any case law or refs that might apply to portfolio trusts/servicers and "Lack of Standing". Or proof of ownership? Obviously, JDB's and buy outs seem easier to show.

[figures2000]

I think its kinda strange, too, that the judge would not allow their bill of sale yet still didn't dismiss.

It seems to me like once he/she threw out the bill of sale and didn't allow it, that blew the plaintiff's case out of the water. Especially since they didn't prove 'usage' (not even a payment) on the statement. If they don't own the debt and can't prove the card belonged to the defendant (or anybody else)...why couldn't/didn't the judge just dismiss right then?

It looks like the court systems in this country like to give OCs and JDBs every opportunity to prevail (no matter what the defendant does or says)

RL

I thought he was going to dismiss after he said they had no credit card agreement and the statements did not show any payments on them.. I dont see how they can win with a Affidvit with no other Docs and statements that show no payments on them... I think the only reason he did not dismiss was because he did not know enough about JDB cases and wanted to go over it.. he talked mostly about Contract law...

Edited October 16, 2010 by figures2000