Plaintiff's request for production of documents and things

[legaleagle]

BV80, you are so right! That is my fundamental argument. We, the vaunted credit card companies, hereby impose upon you the laws of a state in which you do not reside, and which laws we did not explain. We did this by terminology contained in the agreement we didn't send, which says we don't have to send the agreement. It's a round and round Catch 22 designed to benefit them.

Incidentally, SD has a statute which exempts any national bank from any SD law. Cute, huh? What laws apply to these thieves? The laws of their state? No, those only apply to YOU. Federal law? What federal law? There is NO federal law concerning usury for national banks. It is kicked back to the state. The laws of your state? Nope, we're exempt as a national bank. Okay, how about Cuba? Russia? Anybody home? Come on guys, get real. I can't wait to put this in front of six people who hate banks.

[lheart]

I'll keep this simple.

Anger and indignation over how the legal system operates and who writes the laws do not help the posters who come here for advise.

However much we agree with what you say, it will still lose your case in court. And if you get a sympathetic judge, the appeals court will reverse them.

Attempting tactic new and novel in your own case is your prerogative. Advising it to others seeking help is just inexcusable.

This thread is about how to answer discovery questions, not how to rage against the machine that each of us volunteeringly accepted when we accepted the credit card.

[legaleagle]

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I don't consider what I am doing "raging against the machine." I am presenting a novel, cogent argument which accurately describes the way these people do business. Their entire business model is based on circumventing the law and thereafter attempting to unfairly and illegally impose that law (and interest rates that would otherwise be iillegal in their own states) upon people all across the country, while exempting themselves from that same law.

Here's one for you.....do you know who wrote the SD statutes I cite? I'll tell you. Citibank attorneys! The former governor admitted this. Show me where "South Dakota law" was fully explained in any alleged cardholder agreement. Maybe they have the death penalty for credit card delinquency. How would you know? They don't tell you. Go study SD law, and you'll see what you allegedly agreed to. It isn't a very consumer friendly body of law. However, it doesn't apply to Citi or any other bank, just you.

Offering a new approach to defeat these people is not, in my opinion, "inexcusable."

What would you suggest they do? What valid defense is there to credit card debt? I don't want to pay? No. I lost my job? No. You need to attack the legality and legitemacy of the alleged debt. There are only a few ways to do that. Fraud, mistake, or my way, which involves a type of fraud most attorneys never considered. Maybe they're too lazy. Maybe they're too uninformed. Who knows. Walk into any lawyer's office, tell him you're being sued for CC debt, and watch his eyes glaze over. I'll bet every penny I ever own that the first word out of his mouth will be "settle." That's all they know.

Each of us volunteeringly accepted when we accepted the credit card.

No, we did not. I defy anybody to prove this assertion. You cannot be legally held to the terms of an agreement if the terms of that agreement were not explained to you, withheld, or deliberately concealed. This assertion on the part of CC companies is based wholly on the assumption that use constitutes acceptance of an agreement you never received. When they can't prove you received the agreement, they cite another statute that says it doesn't matter. Maybe you like this, but I don't.

I read these threads not as a forum to answer discovery questions. I read them as a plea for help as to how to defend agaisnt people who, in most cases, have manipulated the law to their own favor, not yours. Or, in the case of JDBs, a bunch of cheap shysters who can't make any money practicing REAL law, so they do this boiler room garbage where they try to screw over people who don't know any better, for a few bucks. Sorry, I can't accept this. I think others here will agree. It's my position, and I'm stuck with it. The people who come here for advice can take what they want from it.

[Soccerman45]

I am trying to understand how the Plaintiff can prove a contract existed. (Texas)...Can the Plaintiff use previous credit card statements from the account in question that show purchases, payments, fees, interest, amount owed, min, due,,,etc.....Can the Plaintiff use a copy of a personal check (from the defendant) used for payment for the account in question? I did a little research on a couple of cases in Texas, which shows the Judge allowing this and the Credit Card Agreement,,,(blank copy, no signature),,,once this Discovery is admitted, it seems to me that the case is over......Furthermore, this was accompanied by a Affidavit from a record keeper (from the OC),,,on how they keep records..etc......(all from Chase bank),,,,

[lheart]

I am trying to understand how the Plaintiff can prove a contract existed. (Texas)...Can the Plaintiff use previous credit card statements from the account in question that show purchases, payments, fees, interest, amount owed, min, due,,,etc.....Can the Plaintiff use a copy of a personal check (from the defendant) used for payment for the account in question? I did a little research on a couple of cases in Texas, which shows the Judge allowing this and the Credit Card Agreement,,,(blank copy, no signature),,,once this Discovery is admitted, it seems to me that the case is over......Furthermore, this was accompanied by a Affidavit from a record keeper (from the OC),,,on how they keep records..etc......(all from Chase bank),,,,

You want to focus on attacking standing. This is a JDB. While they may present documents concerning the account, their achiles heel is authenticated evidence that they have the right to collect it.

If they have an affidavit from Chase, does it authentic the sale of the account to the JDB or just say you had an account? Usually they will bring a very basic sale agreement with no attached documentation saying they bought a bunch of accounts. Then they will include a computer printout with your account information all alone. That is where you attack their records as hearsay. It stops their case dead if they cannot prove they have standing to sue for the debt. At that point all the documents from the OC mean nothing.

To legaleagle;

I never said the laws are fair, but they are the laws. To use your example, try standing in front of a judge and saying our banking and credit card system is a fraud and a scam and watch his eyes glaze over.

The way you win your case is you attack their evidence, not the system. You will lose 10 times out or 10 attacking the system, but can win by attacking the evidence.

[Merk]

You want to focus on attacking standing. This is a JDB. While they may present documents concerning the account, their achiles heel is authenticated evidence that they have the right to collect it.

If they have an affidavit from Chase, does it authentic the sale of the account to the JDB or just say you had an account? Usually they will bring a very basic sale agreement with no attached documentation saying they bought a bunch of accounts. Then they will include a computer printout with your account information all alone. That is where you attack their records as hearsay. It stops their case dead if they cannot prove they have standing to sue for the debt. At that point all the documents from the OC mean nothing.

To legaleagle;

I never said the laws are fair, but they are the laws. To use your example, try standing in front of a judge and saying our banking and credit card system is a fraud and a scam and watch his eyes glaze over.

The way you win your case is you attack their evidence, not the system. You will lose 10 times out or 10 attacking the system, but can win by attacking the evidence.

This is my case with Comprehensive Legal Solutions...they sent a piece of paper saying they bought the alleged account but it doesn't show any matching info, then they just have months of payments, and tried to call something a "credit card agreement" but it was just the explanation and account info...nothing even resembling an agreement. Any suggestions or threads as to how to better go about this. I'm answering interrogs and producing docs now, and I will then send my requests for docs, interrogs, and admissions.

[BV80]

I am trying to understand how the Plaintiff can prove a contract existed. (Texas)...Can the Plaintiff use previous credit card statements from the account in question that show purchases, payments, fees, interest, amount owed, min, due,,,etc.....Can the Plaintiff use a copy of a personal check (from the defendant) used for payment for the account in question? I did a little research on a couple of cases in Texas, which shows the Judge allowing this and the Credit Card Agreement,,,(blank copy, no signature),,,once this Discovery is admitted, it seems to me that the case is over......Furthermore, this was accompanied by a Affidavit from a record keeper (from the OC),,,on how they keep records..etc......(all from Chase bank),,,,

A cardmember states that use of the card indicates your acceptance of the terms and conditions. That's an implied contract.

You have to attack their ownership of the account. It doesn't matter if they have cc statements that show you made purchases or payments. If they can't prove they own the account, they have no standing to sue. If they don't have standing to sue, there is no account stated or contract to breach.

[legaleagle]

To legaleagle;

I never said the laws are fair, but they are the laws. To use your example, try standing in front of a judge and saying our banking and credit card system is a fraud and a scam and watch his eyes glaze over.

The way you win your case is you attack their evidence, not the system. You will lose 10 times out or 10 attacking the system, but can win by attacking the evidence.

I agree, judges rule on the law, not on the basis of some wild eyed lunatic ranting that the entire system is corrupt. That will get you nowhere, and I do not intend to do that. The "evidence" is exactly where I am going with this. They don't have any that supports their claim. The evidence they attempt to rely upon is a nonexistent agreement based upon laws they are not legally allowed to export to other states. See Citbank v. Wilson. MO.

Any practice which is "technically legal" can still be contrued as unscrupulous, oppressive, or contrary to public policy. That is the basis of CUTPA in my state, the unfair trade practices act. There is no requirement that the conduct be illegal, or even intentional. SD has an unfair trade practices law, all it covers is advertising!

My main gripe is that these banks can't wait to impose the unexplained laws of their state on consumers, but when you attempt to impose that same law on them, they squeal like a pig and claim exemption. This involves choice of law and evasion of the law.

If I were a judge, God forbid, and some huge credit card company marched into my court room and attempted to use SD law against my residents, then whined and complained that it doesn't apply to them, and neither does the law of my state, the first question I would ask is this: What law DOES apply to you? Are you above the law? Or have you conveniently structured this business model so as to sidestep every known law in the country?

If the judge doesn't ask that in my case, I will. I'll get some Citi employee on the stand one way or the other. I think a jury will understand what they are doing. I think it IS illegal the way they are doing it, I really do. And if the basis of your defense / copunterclaim is a clear, provable violation of public policy and / or circumvention of the law for personal gain, you should be able to prevail.

I think I am on to something. The original law firm that filed suit handed this off to a new law firm here. Neither one of them seems to know anything much. I could explain, but it would take too long. Suffice it to say that these lawyers have no clue when it comes to litigating this kind of case. They think they can throw a bunch of objections at you and you'll fold. The manner in which they objected to my counterclaim is laughable, legally insufficient, improper, contrary to the RCP, and founded upon unproven, conclusory legal assertions. Other than that, it's great.

[lheart]

To legaleagle;

They don't have any that supports their claim. The evidence they attempt to rely upon is a nonexistent agreement based upon laws they are not legally allowed to export to other states. See Citbank v. Wilson. MO.

Did you read the the decision?

The case was dismissed by the local judge because there was no signature to prove she had accepted the new contractual terms.

Citi appealed and the appeals court determined the judge erred. They decided that her continuing use of the card constituted acceptance of the amended agreement even though there was no signature signed to it. They also determined that the new contract was valid and enforceable.

They decided the choice of law and SD contract law was a moot point since the actions of the defendant constituted an offer, acceptance and consideration. They remanded back to the local court to give her a chance to present her side of the case because her dismissal was vacated. Here is the final decision:

Conclusion

Because the trial court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of Wilson's acceptance of the revised agreement or valid consideration to support the contract, this court reverses the judgment dismissing the case and remands to allow Wilson to present her evidence.

[legaleagle]

I did read it, and I think it supports my basic position, that terms in an agreement you never received are not enforceable. I think reasonable logic would apply. The Appeals court stated that according to Missouri law, use and acceptance applies. My state has no such law, I assume some others do not have as well. Here's the entire decision:

Citibank argues that South Dakota law should have been applied because: (1) federal case law requires that the laws of a credit card company's home state must be applied in a suit to enforce a credit card agreement; and (2) the credit card agreement contains a clause providing that South Dakota law governs the terms and enforcement of the agreement. Both arguments are misplaced.Citibank argues that the United States Supreme Court has held that South Dakota law applies to contracts entered into by a credit card issuer, citing Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 99 S.Ct. 540, 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978), and Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996), in support of this proposition. However, Citibank misconstrues these two cases. First, Marquette dealt with whether a national bank could charge an out-of-state credit card holder an interest rate that was valid in the bank's home state when such rate was not permitted by the laws of the cardholder's state. 439 U.S. at 301, 99 S.Ct. 540. Smiley dealt with whether late fees were properly considered interest. 517 U.S. at 737, 116 S.Ct. 1730. Further, the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 85, which was at issue in both Marquette and Smiley, only addresses the interest rate that a bank may charge. Nowhere in the cases cited by Citibank, nor in the statute interpreted by those cases, is there any language that mentions the application of the laws of the credit card issuer's home state in relation to the enforcement of contracts, let alone mandating the application of such laws.

Citibank also argues that South Dakota law applies because the credit card agreement contained a choice of law provision. This court agrees with Citibank that a valid choice of law provision in a contract would bind the parties. However, Citibank disregards the fact that the only choice of law provision before the trial court was contained in the revised agreement, the validity of which is in question. This court would have to resort to circular logic to reach Citibank's conclusion that the agreement was valid. Here, Citibank argues that the agreement would be valid if South Dakota law applies. For South 813*813 Dakota law to apply, the choice of law provision in the revised agreement must be given effect. But the choice of law provision is effective only if the revised agreement is valid. In essence, Citibank is asking that this court use a term from an agreement to determine its validity.

Despite Citibank's misplaced arguments as to why South Dakota law applies, the issue is moot. Under Missouri contract law, there was sufficient evidence that Wilson had, in fact, accepted the revised agreement through her conduct, i.e., her continued use of the credit card after receiving the July 2001 credit card statement that included the terms of the revised agreement.

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

Let's say YOU are the defendant; I claim that we executed an agreement in which you agreed to all the terms contained therein. However, I did not give you a copy of the agreement and cannot prove you agreed to the terms. I then claim that the agreement is not necessary because you used the credit card attached thereto. Upon what do I base that contention? By the fact that the credit card agreement I never sent you contained language which says so. And the language just happens to be related to a SD statute which I have no legal right to bind you to unless you agreed to be bound by SD law, which you supposedly did, by the language in the agreement I never sent you.

See? This is my point. This is not about some signature or lack thereof which may not conform to MO law. The basic principle is that this is grossly unfair and if this was a straight contract case, NO plaintiff could prevai by making such ridiculous assertions. These are extremely important rights which nobody should ever be assumed to have relinquished, especially in some agreement they never received. This cuts out every court in the nation. These people have circumvented every law known, for profit. SD law applies to you, but not to them. The laws of your state don't apply to them because of the agreement you never got. Federal law does not apply because of the choice of state law. In other words, any law you can come up with applies to you, but not to them.

Also, I think they should have continued to fight this to the next level. No evidence was produced at trial that proved any such "sgreement" was ever attached to any statement, or that the defendant agreed to same. It was just assumed by the court that it was mailed and agreed to. I would have to disagree.

I can send you a bill for a million dollars, and when you don't pay, I can sue you and claim you agreed to pay me. How? We have an agreement. Here it is. You never received it? Really? You're a liar. I mailed it to you. The post office never returned it. That means you received it and accepted it. Prove otherwise, go ahead. Prove a negative when the plaintiff has no requirement to prove a positive. Is this fair?

Edited November 16, 2011 by legaleagle

[lheart]

You have still skipped over the part of the decision you do not like in your logic.

Citibank also argues that South Dakota law applies because the credit card agreement contained a choice of law provision. This court agrees with Citibank that a valid choice of law provision in a contract would bind the parties. However, Citibank disregards the fact that the only choice of law provision before the trial court was contained in the revised agreement, the validity of which is in question. This court would have to resort to circular logic to reach Citibank's conclusion that the agreement was valid.

The issue was not just did SD law apply, but if there was offer and acceptance. Citi argued the plaintiff was bound by the new contract because SD law allows for updates with no notification irregardless of offer and acceptance. The court ruled that the first agreement did not contain the choice of law provision but the second agreement did. Since the first agreement had no choice of law provision, then the choice of law of the second did not apply UNTIL AFTER the defendant used the card which was the offer and acceptance action. Offer, acceptance and consideration are the four corners of contract law in EVERY state.

The decision clearly says, "This court agrees with Citibank that a valid choice of law provision in a contract would bind the parties." So I do not understand how you can read anything else from this decision that went AGAINST the defendant and FOR Citibank. Choice of law of SD applies because the defendant continued to use the card so the case that was dismissed against her by the judge that sympathized with her was reopened for further consideration.

Which goes back to my earlier point that judges cannot just do what they want to do because they like the way someone presents their case. They are bound by the laws that the legislators created and the appeals courts previous decisions. If they ignore these precedents, than they face reversal as in the cited case.

And juries can be reversed also.

[BV80]

I can send you a bill for a million dollars, and when you don't pay, I can sue you and claim you agreed to pay me. How? We have an agreement. Here it is. You never received it? Really? You're a liar. I mailed it to you. The post office never returned it. That means you received it and accepted it. Prove otherwise, go ahead. Prove a negative when the plaintiff has no requirement to prove a positive. Is this fair?

Legal, although I agree that the law favors the cc companies, the example you provided doesn't apply.

Unless you have a cancelled check, you would not be able to prove you lent someone a million dollars. You would have to have some evidence that you actually lent the person the money. CC companies have statements that show the cardholder's name, address charges, and payments. That's proof of the existence of the account and that charges were made to the account.

If someone makes charges to a credit card, they know good and well they have to pay that money back. To claim they don't have to pay it back just because they didn't receive a cardmember agreement is outside the realm of common sense.

[nascar]

Choice of law arguments can become very complicated. I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement that a certain state's law will always apply under a given set of circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.

I think it' pretty safe to say, however, that the law of the forum state (the state where the action is brought) will apply until the court is given a compelling reason to apply the laws of a foreign state. Things like expectations of the parties, public policy of the forum state, rational nexus, etc., all have to be taken into consideration.

I think all of the views here contain valid points. Which of them apply, and when, depend upon the circumstances, don't you think?

[lheart]

Thanks Nascar. The thread has veered off it's original course. The OP was asking about help with Discovery request. Legaleasgle brought up the argument that ALL credit card agreements were invalid because of the choice of law provision. My rebuttal is that is simply not true.

The sub argument was to show why the case he cited did not support his argument.

Choice of law is different in every jurisdiction. In Ohio in particular, substantive laws import, but procedural laws do not.

[Soccerman45]

I am trying to research on how to defend against: ACCOUNTS STATED & UNPAID OPEN ACCOUNT. which is listed on original petition from PLAINTIFF (JDB) (TEXAS)

It looks like from past cases this JDB was able to introduce past Credit Card statements, a Business Records AFFIDAVIT from JDB, Deposition answers from a 3rd party (OC), pertaining to the hearsay Exception of Business Records..

[Soccerman45]

A cardmember states that use of the card indicates your acceptance of the terms and conditions. That's an implied contract.

You have to attack their ownership of the account. It doesn't matter if they have cc statements that show you made purchases or payments. If they can't prove they own the account, they have no standing to sue. If they don't have standing to sue, there is no account stated or contract to breach.

How do you go about attacking ownership (JDB) of the account? Texas

[legaleagle]

I did not make that blanket argument, Lheart. My argument is that in cases where there is absolutely no proof of delivery of any such agreement, backed by a pleading that states clearly that the lender "does not execute cardholder agreements," the claim that you agreed to all ths junk goes out the window.

I understand your point, but it is different from what I am going for. the revised agreement, the validity of which is in question. This court would have to resort to circular logic to reach Citibank's conclusion that the agreement was valid

This is in direct contradiction to: "This court agrees with Citibank that a valid choice of law provision in a contract would bind the parties."

Of course they agree that a VALID choice of law provision would bind the parties. Then, the court states that the validity of the revised agreement is in question, as are all of these agreements. That is my point. The case was kicked back to the lower court, presumably for Citi to make their case.

NASCAR made a good observation; these are not cut and dried. In order for choice of law to be effective, it must be demonstrated that the parties willingly entered into such an agreement after coming to an understanding about exactly what they were agreeing to. Citi neve gives you that option. Choice of law involves the determination of who has the greater interest. What interest does Citi have in a credit card case brought in another state? None, other than the fact that Bill Janklow acceded to political bribery in 1981 and allowed Citi lawyers to write the statutes that benefited, guess who, Citi.

[legaleagle]

Legal, although I agree that the law favors the cc companies, the example you provided doesn't apply.

Unless you have a cancelled check, you would not be able to prove you lent someone a million dollars. You would have to have some evidence that you actually lent the person the money. CC companies have statements that show the cardholder's name, address charges, and payments. That's proof of the existence of the account and that charges were made to the account.

If someone makes charges to a credit card, they know good and well they have to pay that money back. To claim they don't have to pay it back just because they didn't receive a cardmember agreement is outside the realm of common sense.

I know I don't have a thread for my particular case, so what I am alleging is not clear. I make no such claim concerning charges made on the acount. The basis of my case is that the vast majorty of the amount claimed as owed is from the application of illegal interest. The reason why it is illegal has been posted in my threads. They CANNOT export state laws under the NBA, only the interest rate, which SD law clearly defines as 15% absent a written agreement. Let them produce that agreement. They can't, and they won't. They already amitted that they don't even execute such agreements. Maybe that was a stupid mistake on the part of the idiot lawyer they hired, but that's just too bad for them.

My comment about the million dollars was an example of what they do. If I knew who you were and had your address, I guarantee you I could produce "copies" of statements I "sent" to you. I can make it look like you bought everything on sale for the last thirty years if I wanted to, and there is no defense against this, according to the theory of account stated. This actually makes my point; why do I have to prove everything, and they have to prove nothing? Do you really trust these banks after what they've been caught doing? Not me.

I have an entirely different view of these people after being involved in a lawsuit connected to a mortgage. They are absolutely ruthless and will resort to anything to protect themselves. They have pulled stuff on me you would have a hard time believing, but it will come back to bite them. Some day I'll post it here, but not now. Banks? Honest? Upstanding? Concerned with the rights of the consumer? Don't make me laugh. We know what they're concerned with; their next political bribe that allows them to fleece the people so their bottom line stays viable, so as to support their phony stock price. Bank of Ameica is at what, barely six dollars? The biggest bank going and they are at six bucks? Good job. There is a reason for that. Can you spell MOZILLO? Nice investment, you dummies. Now you turn on the public so you can stay in business. Yeah, I'm mad. I have a right to be.

The law is not supposed to favor credit card companies, or you, or me. The law is blind. It is what it is. Judges make rulings based upon that law. If one entity finds a way to circumvent that law for profit, they should be dealt with. The law applies equally to all, and that includes the rules of evidence. These lenders can just waltz into court with a few statements they printed out and claim you owe the money. No defense for you, dude. Take our word for it, you owe us. Okay, here's MY statement that says I paid you in full. Take MY word for it. Now, you jump ugly. You demand proof. Well, so do I. Why is your evidence any better than mine?

These people do not like what I am doing to them. They have sicced two major law firms on me so far, and neither one of them has a clue as to procedure, etc. I'm no lawyer, but I have enough experience to see when I am up against somebody who doesn't know what they are doing. Maybe I'll win, maybe I'll lose. But I guarantee you one thing, they'll know they've been in a fight.

[BV80]

How do you go about attacking ownership (JDB) of the account? Texas

In discovery, you send a Request for Production of Documents, and request a bill of sale or assignment from the original creditor to the JDB.

Even if they can provide a bill of sale, more than likely, it won't reference your name or account number. It will merely state that the OC sold a portfolio or bundle of accounts to the JDB. That's not proof your account was included in that bundle.

[Merk]

In discovery, you send a Request for Production of Documents, and request a bill of sale or assignment from the original creditor to the JDB.

Even if they can provide a bill of sale, more than likely, it won't reference your name or account number. It will merely state that the OC sold a portfolio or bundle of accounts to the JDB. That's not proof your account was included in that bundle.

That's what was provided with one of my cases I'm working on Discovery for right now. "They bough the account...blah blah..." signatures, etc., but no where is there anything referencing me. So should I ask them to admit to this in admissions through various requests, or request for this specific type of doc or other docs I can request. I'm looking for some good boiler plate discovery interrogs, admins and requests of docs. I'm looking through the stickies and stuff but I just keep wondering which ones to use. Do you know of a good sticky to "stick" to or have a sight or any references for good basic discovery for a jdb? Anyone?....

[BV80]

That's what was provided with one of my cases I'm working on Discovery for right now. "They bough the account...blah blah..." signatures, etc., but no where is there anything referencing me. So should I ask them to admit to this in admissions through various requests, or request for this specific type of doc or other docs I can request. I'm looking for some good boiler plate discovery interrogs, admins and requests of docs. I'm looking through the stickies and stuff but I just keep wondering which ones to use. Do you know of a good sticky to "stick" to or have a sight or any references for good basic discovery for a jdb? Anyone?....

Merk,

Start your own thread with this one so we don't get the posts and responses confused.

[Merk]

Merk,

Start your own thread with this one so we don't get the posts and responses confused.

Ok should I start from the begining or paraphrase or pretty much copy word for word...I've answered the complaints and have gotten discovery I need to respond to and then send my own.

[BV80]

Ok should I start from the begining or paraphrase or pretty much copy word for word...I've answered the complaints and have gotten discovery I need to respond to and then send my own.

Answering the questions in the following link would be a good idea. The more information we have, the better.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/242744-qs-answer-when-posting-forum-please-read.html