Jump to content

Citibank can I Amend an already amended answer?

Recommended Posts

what you need to do is if you are going to amend you need to pick your position in this matter.

If you are denying the account, by amending it is gonna show you have more knowledge than you are letting on. This will weaken your denial.

You have denied the account already. If they have done something during discovery then it would be proper to amend. Unfortunatly you are going to have to file a Motion for leave to amend. The other side will get the oppurtunity to oppose it and get to restate their position again to the judge REINFORCING their story in the judges mind.

you have to way the damage you can do to your case by allowing an amendment to cloud the issues. If the judge is only slightly leaning in defendants way it might put them off.

I have seen from your previous actions that you are trying to make this go away quickly so that you will be able to get over your fear quickly.

So you have to see that one more motion may cause a shift in perception with the court.

For the OC you are dealing with account validity, records accuracy, and witness knowledge.

For the record I think it is possible to win against an OC but if you turn the court against you it is harder to do.

so with the allegations against you you have toconcentrate on the three weaknesses of anOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971)

Plaintiff-inmate filed pro se complaint against prison seeking compensation for damages sustained while placed in solitary confinement. In finding plaintiff's complaint legally sufficient, Supreme Court found that pro se pleadings should be held to "less stringent standards" than those drafted by attorneys.

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233

Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)

"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."

Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA)

It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

Edited by racecar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that as soon as you decide you want this over quickly it places you at a disadvantage, Your opposition doesn't really care if it is over quickly they are operating on auto pilot and waiting for you to make a mistake which is more likely if you want it over quickly.

It's important to think of these cases as a marathon rather than a sprint, you're in it for the long haul, and you need to pace yourself, thrust-parry-thrust and watch for your opening, you will be infinately more likely to be watching the case more closely than they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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