tigger

Affiant signed affidavit of debt....so bogus!

Recommended Posts

After careful examination, we've discovered the infamous jdb robosigners are at it again. Get this...

With the CCP98, is attached the affidavit of debt. The signature of the alleged affiant was supposedly signed June 7, 2011.

Ummmm....why is the notary signature dated almost an entire month prior?

May 10, 2011? :lol: Shouldn't the notary have signed at the same time or after the affiant...not before?

Looks like they just had some forms already notarized, ready for the robo-signers to do their thing. What a joke.

:rolleyes:

Oh and if this was "available" and signed back in May/June, why wasn't it presented to us when we served our BOP, (back in April)? Or when we followed up w/our letter stating their response was insufficient?

For lack of better terms, this totally reeks.

Edited by tigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

this is blatant fraud upon the court. also submit a copy to the secretary of state(or other official in charge of notaries) and make a written complaint of inproper notary of a court document in another state.

also does it have the perjury statement? I would notify the media. They would love this.

oh and file a complaint with the BBB.

and go to church and have them pray for a rain of frogs on the plaintiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this is blatant fraud upon the court. also submit a copy to the secretary of state(or other official in charge of notaries) and make a written complaint of inproper notary of a court document in another state.

also does it have the perjury statement? I would notify the media. They would love this.

oh and file a complaint with the BBB.

and go to church and have them pray for a rain of frogs on the plaintiff.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao: Don't forget the boils!!! :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum

the DA will not care, but I would send it onto the AG. They will likely not do anything either, but if they see a pattern of it and believe it is widespread it could open up an investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the DA will not care, but I would send it onto the AG. They will likely not do anything either, but if they see a pattern of it and believe it is widespread it could open up an investigation.

Actually since OP is in California they may do something. I listened to the CA AG on the radio the other day. She has broken off from the Federal investigation around Robo-Signing because the Feds are not moving fast enough. The thing to do is get it in the right hands in the AGs office, I would not just send in a regular complaint, but find someone on the Robo-Signing task force you can talk with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an affirmative defense, bring this up under Unclean Hands. Also, robosignatures are considered Abuse of Process, and if the facts are as you state them, Fraud as well. All of which are great affirmative defenses.

File a Motion to Strike to get the affidavit out of the way, then consider a counterclaim citing abuse of process.

Edited by MehtaMar
wrong quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about fraud, that seems like the wrong terminology. The lawyer will just claim innocence and some kind of exemption. Here we have something called affidavits made in bad faith, see if your rules have this. There should be a remedy that can be pursued through the court handling the case. If this is legit, ask for sanctions. Maybe a nice bar complaint against the lawyer that submitted this to the court without checking it out would make his day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
After careful examination, we've discovered the infamous jdb robosigners are at it again. Get this...

With the CCP98, is attached the affidavit of debt. The signature of the alleged affiant was supposedly signed June 7, 2011.

Ummmm....why is the notary signature dated almost an entire month prior?

May 10, 2011? :lol: Shouldn't the notary have signed at the same time or after the affiant...not before?

Looks like they just had some forms already notarized, ready for the robo-signers to do their thing. What a joke.

Wait. The affidavit of debt (from the OC) was itself notarized before it was signed? If so, it is bad. When the case is over, I'd send it to the AG of the state where the notary resides. Or pm me and I'll do it for you.

But you have to remember something else. Affidavits are hearsay. THere is a limited exception in CCP 98 if you follow the procedure in that rule. But all of the evidence must be otherwise admissible. Attaching another affidavit doesn't cut it. THAT affidavit wasn't served pursuant to CCP 98. An address for THAT affiant wasn't provided. It is hearsay and should not be allowed into evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....by this company.

Exhibit A:

Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector - WSJ.com

If utilizing a dead woman to sign off as an affiant isn't fraud, I don't know what is.

The truly pathetic thing is they attempted to pawn it off on the card company, when they contacted the Wall Street Journal to comment on the article. Clearly that is NOT the reality. At. All.

Our case involves a totally different card company. What's the common denominator? The subject of the above article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait. The affidavit of debt (from the OC) was itself notarized before it was signed? If so, it is bad. When the case is over, I'd send it to the AG of the state where the notary resides. Or pm me and I'll do it for you.

Yes, that is correct (unfortunately). :(

My relative does detail oriented work, and has rec'd many kudos (and occasionally gifts) for saving the company a lot of money--w/his ability to hone in on errors. He immediately saw the dates did not match (or come recently) from the date of the paperwork signed by the jdb.

I appreciate your willingness to send it to the AG where the notary resides at the close of the case. Thank you, calawyer. You are incredibly kind to offer to do so--thank you!

But you have to remember something else. Affidavits are hearsay. THere is a limited exception in CCP 98 if you follow the procedure in that rule. But all of the evidence must be otherwise admissible. Attaching another affidavit doesn't cut it. THAT affidavit wasn't served pursuant to CCP 98. An address for THAT affiant wasn't provided. It is hearsay and should not be allowed into evidence.

per their case mgmnt. statement, discovery is over. This alleged affiant was not "found" or "provided" during disocovery to allow defense (us) an opportunity to depo. them. I know I'm new to all of this, but that seems a blatant violation of our rights.

It's more than a little shady that suddenly we're being mailed this stuff in December, that is dated May/June...yet that was when we were in discovery. :confused::evil:

All they've provided is more generic print-outs (as w/BoP--hearsay)...there's no bill of sale, statement of purchase or anything else that shows they have standing to sue on this alleged account. (Per the original complaint, alleging a contract between plaintiff and defendant). wth...?

....since I hadn't filed the motion in limine yet (in an attempt to preclude them from introducing any new evidence, per rules on BoP)...I'm researching my other options at this point. Any suggestions on how to get the judge to strike this, prior to trial? Or do we have to wait for trial? :confused:

Edited by tigger
Link to post
Share on other sites
As an affirmative defense, bring this up under Unclean Hands. Also, robosignatures are considered Abuse of Process, and if the facts are as you state them, Fraud as well. All of which are great affirmative defenses.

File a Motion to Strike to get the affidavit out of the way, then consider a counterclaim citing abuse of process.

Hi MehtaMar, Good to see you here! :)++ Ready for your holidays?

Funny you should mention a counter claim. We are considering it. If I'm reading and understanding the rules of court correctly, doing so is still allowed (even though we're supposed to go to trial at the end of Jan).

I just wasn't sure if it was worth the effort, considering that the plaintiff and their attorney's will probably protest LOUDLY. (sigh)

Prior to this act on their part, I was preparing for what I presumed would be a dismissal of the case (w/out predjudice)...once we got their faulty affidavit thrown out. Now I'm not sure what to do. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually since OP is in California they may do something. I listened to the CA AG on the radio the other day. She has broken off from the Federal investigation around Robo-Signing because the Feds are not moving fast enough. The thing to do is get it in the right hands in the AGs office, I would not just send in a regular complaint, but find someone on the Robo-Signing task force you can talk with.

Always the one w/such helpful information, KentWA. Thanks so much for this! That sounds like our Attorney General. ;) I was reading she was unhappy with lawsuits occuring as they weren't stringent enough on the corporations.

I will definitely get to work (once case is resolved) w/finding a name (and contact information) for someone on that task force.

You rock...thank you! :mrgreen:

Edited by tigger
Link to post
Share on other sites
this is blatant fraud upon the court. also submit a copy to the secretary of state(or other official in charge of notaries) and make a written complaint of inproper notary of a court document in another state.

also does it have the perjury statement? I would notify the media. They would love this.

oh and file a complaint with the BBB.

and go to church and have them pray for a rain of frogs on the plaintiff.

:lol: You. Are. Hilarious. :ROFLMAO2:

But in addition to your comic relief, I can't thank you enough for all of your incredibly helpful advice. You also rock!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking for assistance...

...do I file a motion to strike? or a motion to preclude?...in order to make their inadmissable faux evidence, laced w/fraudulent signatures go bye bye?

suggestions regarding possible counter claim also being accepted...

thanks in advance!

:mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to object now in the form of a motion. I do not know about California, but in most places if you do not object in a timely manner, you waive your ability to object later. I would look for and cite any cases *anywhere* where they were caught red handed with phony or questionable affidavits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to object now in the form of a motion. I do not know about California, but in most places if you do not object in a timely manner, you waive your ability to object later. I would look for and cite any cases *anywhere* where they were caught red handed with phony or questionable affidavits.

Appreciate your advice, KentWA.

I'm presuming I need to file a motion in limine?

I believe there has to be a hearing scheduled, and time must be allowed for that...?(...any California knowledgeable folks--do correct me if I've misread and/or misunderstood the rules in regard to this)

I'm referencing my Nolo guide (Win your Lawsuit by Roderic Duncan) and the following link:

33-373 Motions In Limine

in addition to local rules of court, etc.

Since the jdb asshats chose to serve us w/this crap just prior to the holiday, the law library was closed. They're still closed today (as are all affiliated branches, city and school libraries, etc.)...so I'm working on the fly w/what's available outside of the law library, etc. At least for today.

:oops::confused:

If I should not be doing the motion in limine on this, someone let me know. But for now, that is what I am off to work on. I'll be checking in here for any updates while I work.

Thanks again, KentWA...! Appreciate your tips and assistance. Will definitely include any and all cases where they utilized phony/questionable affidavits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...adorable really:rolleyes:

After the letter by jdb, the attached affiant statement, notarized as I stated in first post, there are almost two years of print-outs/statements (from the LAST two years of the account).

No signatures.

No bill of sale.

No notice of assignment.

No contract provided that was allegedly what relative sued on (in original complaint).

Yes, all of this is bad enough--but I'm guessing pretty standard when one is sued by a jdb. ...and no, none of this is the cute part.

The adorable thing I mentioned is that they attached an, "Order that Copies be Accepted in Lieu of Originals." The truly precious thing?

It's not even signed by the judge. Signature and date spaces left glaringly blank.

:roll:

Does this stuff typically scare defendants? I find it less frightening in regard to the case at hand, and more terrifying that the plaintiff's counsel (allegedly)attended law school, yet they attempt to pass muster with this stuff.

:? So disgusted right now.

Update...from today's research, should I be writing up a motion to exclude and motion in limine?

Edited by tigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

You definetly want to preclude the affidavit, and since you sent a BOP, I'd think you'd want to file a motion in limine (since they only provided 2 years of statements).

With no bill of sale- you could even use this as lack of standing in a motion to dismiss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tigger,

Glad to see you're getting so much help fighting the good fight. Not sure if this is pertinent or needed but just in case! Anyway, maybe someone else will find it handy.

Equable Ascent are perhaps the most incompetent JDB out there. They have nothing and count on fear of the defendant to not fight for them to win their cases.

I was in the same position with the CCP98 and filed the following:

Superior Court of the State of California

For the County of ______

Address

______ Civil Division

PLAINTIFF: EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL

DEFENDANT: ________________

Case Number: ______________

NOTICE TO APPEAR

TO PLAINTIFF EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL. AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Equable Ascent witness, _______________; as per the witness’s Declaration In lieu Of Live Testimony At Trial; appear at the trial of the above-entitled matter on (date of your trial) at (time)., in Department ____of the above-entitled court located at _____________California, to testify as a witness in this action.

This request is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(B) which provides that the giving of this notice has the same effect as the service of a subpoena and, that, in the event of noncompliance with this notice, the parties shall have such rights, and the court may make such orders, including the imposition of sanctions, as in the case of a subpoena for attendance before the court.

Dated: _____________

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________

The rental attorney showed up without the witness, asked me to settle and when I told them "no" as they have no standing, they asked for dismissal.

All they had as so-called "evidence" was a copy of a contract from that company, unsigned which could have been anyone's, a piece of paper purportedly showing "assignment" that showed only that they had purchased over 35,000 contracts, and an old statement of mine. Amazingly they would have won on that garbage if I hadn't fought (of course with the incredible aid of Calawyer and so many others on this site.

I am 100% certain that you will win against them. I'd wish you luck but you don't need it :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
....by this company.

Exhibit A:

Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector - WSJ.com

If utilizing a dead woman to sign off as an affiant isn't fraud, I don't know what is.

The truly pathetic thing is they attempted to pawn it off on the card company, when they contacted the Wall Street Journal to comment on the article. Clearly that is NOT the reality. At. All.

Our case involves a totally different card company. What's the common denominator? The subject of the above article.

I brought this up when I crossed examined Denise Horn (Portfolio's Custodian of Records) during trial last wk. I kid you not I asked her if she knew who Martha Kunkle was & she & the atty were digging through their paperwork looking to see who I was referring to & she said No & the atty ask what was it in reference to & I told the judge they were caught using a deseased robo signer on their BOS affidavit. I went on to ask if the BOS affiant was alive when she signed the BOS affidavit (in my case) & she said I'm pretty sure she was..LOL It was so funny!! BTW I won my case that day, the BOS affidavit was not let into evidence.

Anyway I just thought that was funny. I was told to have some fun w/ it at trial & I did...lol8-)

Anyway I'm pulling for ya to win!! :mrgreen:

Edited by VLDCA
Link to post
Share on other sites
I brought this up when I crossed examined Denise Horn (Portfolio's Custodian of Records) during trial last wk. I kid you not I asked her if she knew who Martha Kunkle was & she & the atty were digging through their paperwork looking to see who I was referring to & she said No & the atty ask what was it in reference to & I told the judge they were caught using a deseased robo signer on their BOS affidavit. I went on to ask if the BOS affiant was alive when she signed the BOS affidavit (in my case) & she said I'm pretty sure she was..LOL It was so funny!! BTW I won my case that day, the BOS affidavit was not let into evidence.

Anyway I just thought that was funny. I was told to have some fun w/ it at trial & I did...lol8-)

Anyway I'm pulling for ya to win!! :mrgreen:

omg. That. was. amazing. :ROFLMAO2:

I *so* wish I'd been a fly on the wall (or at least observing in court) the day of your trial. No wonder that attorney was so mad. His evidence was crap (he knew it), and you called him on it. The ONLY way he could prove his case was if he could get you to admit it was your account. So he kept insisting you could not be telling the truth (in hopes he'd strike some sort of nerve).

Wow. Makes me wonder what law school he learned the "badger and belittle, when your evidence is inadmissable", method.

I'm so glad you posted this. Thank you, VLDCA. :mrgreen: This makes me feel better!

Oh and while we're on the topic, one of my favorite passages from the link about Martha Kunkle follows:

In 2008, Judy Montoya, an employee at Portfolio Recovery Associates, testified in a debt-collection suit filed by the company that its "legal spe******ts" sign as many as 200 affidavits a day. The company's spokeswoman said such employees sign an average of 100 affidavits a day and are guided by "a very rigorous set of policies and procedures." Ms. Montoya couldn't be reached to comment.

100-200 affidavits....a day? Come on. There's bound to be mistakes with that kind of volume.

Edited by tigger
Link to post
Share on other sites
omg. That. was. amazing. :ROFLMAO2:

I *so* wish I'd been a fly on the wall (or at least observing in court) the day of your trial. No wonder that attorney was so mad. His evidence was crap (he knew it), and you called him on it. The ONLY way he could prove his case was if he could get you to admit it was your account. So he kept insisting you could not be telling the truth (in hopes he'd strike some sort of nerve).

Wow. Makes me wonder what law school he learned the "badger and belittle, when your evidence is inadmissable", method.

I'm so glad you posted this. Thank you, VLDCA. :mrgreen: This makes me feel better!

Oh and while we're on the topic, one of my favorite passages from the link about Martha Kunkle follows:

In 2008, Judy Montoya, an employee at Portfolio Recovery Associates, testified in a debt-collection suit filed by the company that its "legal spe******ts" sign as many as 200 affidavits a day. The company's spokeswoman said such employees sign an average of 100 affidavits a day and are guided by "a very rigorous set of policies and procedures." Ms. Montoya couldn't be reached to comment.

100-200 affidavits....a day? Come on. There's bound to be mistakes with that kind of volume.

LOL I loved it, it was right before he direct examined me. I first asked her if she knew who my BOS affiant was 'Ashley Oku' & she at first said "ugh, hmmmm, ugh, ummmm & he (the atty) pointed out to her on the BOS affidavit (they were sitting a the Plaintiffs table next to each other NO witness stand) Then she said Yes, I said out loud to the atty "Don't be telling her the answers to my questions!" LOL Then the judge (I felt) took up for him & said well she could recognize it by looking at a signature. So my next question was "Do you know who Martha Kunkle is?" LMAO They assumed she had signed another document & they started looking through all their paperwork. It was so funny!!! I asked has she ever witnessed Ashley Oku sign a BOS? She said No & that's when I asked if she even knows that she was a live when she signed the BOS.

So my point was if you can't recognize the name then how do you know if she was alive when she signed my BOS affidavit. Especially after getting busted w/ those of Martha Kunkle's. MORONs!

Plus this Denise has only worked for Portfolio for 3mths. So that should help you as well.

Did you Motion to exclude the affidavit? What a mess, my case seemed to be more prepared than yours & I won! YAY! This should be easy for you & the stupid thing is they still want to go to trial against you? NOT SMART!!:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL I loved it, it was right before he direct examined me. I first asked her if she knew who my BOS affiant was 'Ashley Oku' & she at first said "ugh, hmmmm, ugh, ummmm & he (the atty) pointed out to her on the BOS affidavit (they were sitting a the Plaintiffs table next to each other NO witness stand) Then she said Yes, I said out loud to the atty "Don't be telling her the answers to my questions!" LOL Then the judge (I felt) took up for him & said well she could recognize it by looking at a signature. So my next question was "Do you know who Martha Kunkle is?" LMAO They assumed she had signed another document & they started looking through all their paperwork. It was so funny!!! I asked has she ever witnessed Ashley Oku sign a BOS? She said No & that's when I asked if she even knows that she was a live when she signed the BOS.

So my point was if you can't recognize the name then how do you know if she was alive when she signed my BOS affidavit. Especially after getting busted w/ those of Martha Kunkle's. MORONs!

Plus this Denise has only worked for Portfolio for 3mths. So that should help you as well.

Did you Motion to exclude the affidavit? What a mess, my case seemed to be more prepared than yours & I won! YAY! This should be easy for you & the stupid thing is they still want to go to trial against you? NOT SMART!!:rolleyes:

Wow. I can just imagine the steam that came out of the attorney's ears, when you started that line of questioning, and then went on to hand him his butt in court. Hahahahaha!

We haven't prepared a motion to exclude the affidavit (yet). As there's no need to enter one until (or unless) they actually attempt to enter it into evidence (at trial). Or at least that is my understanding of this...hope this is correct. :confused: But I'm preparing a brief motion in limine to present, in the event the do attempt to enter the CCP 98 into evidence at trial.

I was surprised to read they even had a bill of sale for your case (which the Martha Kunkle testimony knocked out of the court--ha!). I believe it's quite rare, for them to produce bills of sale.

Edited by tigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in the beginning of trial the Plaintiff will try & submit evidence in. So you have to pay attention closely or like my judge did on my second case he said when they present a document into evidence he will ask if I object. So it made it easier, so I wasn't objecting on everything the Plaintiff said...lol

You've got this. It should be an easy win, as long as you object & give your reasons why you'll do grt!! :mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.