Jump to content

Ameridink Vs. Me - Unclean Hands (my lawyer bailed, now I'm pro se again)


Recommended Posts

So after many months, I am deciding to go after Ameridink.

Nutshell Summary:

My identity was stolen sometime around 2007-2009. The thief used my SSN to get credit cards, failed to pay them, then I got sued over said cards. I reported the ID theft to police, the FTC, and the CRA's. This took place after I learned of the issues, but before being sued. When I was sued, I got "Sewer service" so I didn't know of the judgments. Then I learned of CIC.

To date, I have aggressively cleaned as much as possible from my credit cards, and also gone to court to have judgments vacated.

One of the false credit cards was from Ameridink Bank. Ameridink Subsidiary sued me by filing to confirm a bunk arbitration award from NAF. This has since been vacated by me in court. Ameridink Subsidiary's tradeline disappeared from my credit report, but not Ameridink itself.

I have repeatedly asked for verification from Ameridink and asked the CRA's for a reinvestigation. The CRA's claim the amounts were verified by Ameridink, Ameridink bluntly told me they have no signed agreement, but the debt is mine regardless of whether their Subsidiary judgement was vacated or not.

After posting, I secured a NACA lawyer, or so I thought. I signed a contingency agreement with him. Now, 2 months later, Phone calls, emails, letters, and suddenly he's off the face of the planet, so I need to pursue this now on my own. I'm looking for a job after I graduate and this tradeline is a big problem for potential employers (even for internships).

Here are the issues, as I see them:

* Whether the alleged debt belongs to me. (On this issue, Ameridink has 3 times admitted verbally and in writing that they do not have a signed contract for this credit account.)

* Whether Ameridink violated California laws regarding Unclean Hands (their subsidiary used false affidavits and abuse of process to get a judgement in a previous action)

* Whether Ameridink has violated the FCRA by falsely verifying the account with the CRA's (Ameridink admits they have no application or contract)

Questions:

Does anyone have experience with BankOfAmerdink in a settlement negotiation?

I'm dealing with violations of State and Federal law. Which venue do I sue in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unclean hands a blemished record, a record of proven fault, equitable defense, improper history, personal deficiencies, personal problems, problems in the past, tainted past

unclean hands is a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant.

How would you argue they had unclean hands?

The unclean hands doctrine protests judicial integrity and promotes justice. It protects judicial integrity because allowing a plaintiff with unclean hands to recover in an action creates doubts as to the justice provided by the judicial system. Thus, precluding recovery to the unclean plaintiff protects the courts, rather than the opposing parties’ interest. The doctrine promotes justice by making a plaintiff answer for its own misconduct in the action. It prevents “a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression.

Under the doctrine of unclean hands, “a plaintiff must act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy. He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd, supra, 76 Cal. App.4th at 979) The defense of unclean hands applies to legal as well as equitable actions.

A plaintiff’s inequitable conduct in connection with the matter in controversy provides a complete defense to the plaintiff’s action. (Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 436, 446.) Conduct is sufficient to constitute unclean hands if it “violates conscience, or good faith, or other equitable standards of conduct.” (Id.) The doctrine of unclean hands also applies to bad faith conduct by the plaintiff in connection with the matter in controversy. (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 56.) The defense is based upon misconduct in the particular transaction or connected with the subject matter of the litigation. (Wilson v. S.L. Rey, Inc., supra, 17 Cal. App.4th at 244.)

In determining whether the particular misconduct is a bar to a claim, a court should consider (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries. (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd v. Superior Court, supra, at 979; Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole, supra, at 447.)

Edited by BTO429
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unclean hands a blemished record, a record of proven fault, equitable defense, improper history, personal deficiencies, personal problems, problems in the past, tainted past

unclean hands is a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant.

How would you argue they had unclean hands?

I'm going to take a crack at this (although I think I should be arguing fraud instead, as in this case, Ameridink would be the Defendant.)

Ameridink has a history of misrepresenting facts to impede the due process rights of consumers found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Through its subsidiary company and counsel, Ameridink has abused the process of the Courts to confirm bogus arbitration awards that Ameridink itself paid arbitrators to adjudicate cases in its favor, regardless of whether consumers actually owned an account or not. Ameridink and its subsidiary AmeridickSubsidiary has been found to submit false, disparaging, and defamatory evidence into courtrooms across the nation in its efforts to secure judgments against consumers. Ameridink is regularly and systemically engaged in securing accounts by any means possible, frequently neglecting to verify the identity of the person who is opening the account. Ameridink is also an active participant in the filing of fraudulent affidavits to assist in its debt collection efforts – a fact reaffirmed by Ameridink itself during previous litigation.

In the present case, through its continues refusal to remove their tradeline from my credit reports, Ameridink is again improperly asserting that there is money owed on the account, despite 1)clear evidence to the contrary 2) its NAF Class Action Settlement requires Ameridink to cease collection activity in related cases 3) the nature and opening of the account itself is fraudulent, 4) Ameridink has acknowledged and continues to acknowledge that it does not have any records of an application or signed contract in connection with this account, or any past payments on the account.

I'm also considering alleging credit libel because Ameridink (for whatever reason) is continuing to falsely assert that I owe this debt, despite their settlement obligations arising from the NAF Class Action settlement, as well as a court vacating their previous judgment after it was determined that abuse of process was used in securing the judgment.

Here's my case citation: Roybal v. Equifax, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79789 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

" .... Defendants do not dispute that inaccuracies appeared on Mr. Roybal's credit report during 2004, nor do they dispute that copies of Mr. Roybal's credit report were provided to lenders in 2004. Defendants instead argue that they are entitled to protection... because Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants acted with "malice."

However, since Plaintiffs claim to have provided notice of the inaccuracies in Mr. Roybal's credit file to Defendants on multiple occasions beginning in 2004, Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown, for purposes of the current Motions, that Defendants had knowledge of the falsity of the information contained in Mr. Roybal's credit report. .... "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im gonna make ya think a bit:

The Judge will want to know the answer to this also

unclean hands is a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit

How does there past behavior have a relation to YOUR suit? You will have to prove this because if you claim unclean hands, burden of proof falls on you.

I have used and will be again using real soon, the doctrine of unclean hands. I had to prove how their actions pertain to YOUR case. The court will consider their past action on other suits, but the main proof the court wants you to prove is how it pertains to your suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

It's definitely not unclean hands. Unclean hands will 999 times out of 1000 not apply to anything to do with a bank or consumer credit transaction.

Example I learned in school was... You have a teacher who signs a non-compete clause with a university. The professor then leaves the university and violates the non-compete clause because the school was involved in a hiring discrimination scandal. The university then sues the professor because of him breaking the non-compete.

The non-compete clause could then be voided out if the professor brought up the affirmative defense of unclean hands, because the him leaving his position was the result of the schools indiscretions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best approach for you is to pursue the identity theft angle. Maybe you never even saw the card. I had an unsolicited credit card stolen from my mailbox and used by the thief. That was an easy one to get fixed. You have to play detective for while.

I would try to get as many billing statements as possible for this account. I would then look at the charges and see what was purchased, and where. Mine had 10,000 in software materials purchased from a company in India. Yeah, like I'd do that any time soon. You may even be able to establish a pattern where the ID thief went to the same places frequently. (pal owns a liquor store, etc) You may then be able to get signed copies of some charge slips, obviously the signature won't match yours. If you can build a strong documented case for ID theft, it should be no problem getting the judgment vacated and / or get this removed from your credit report.

Edited by legaleagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your arguments sure look like a very good Declaratory Judgement Action complaint. The nicest thing about Declaratory Judgement cases is that it is almost 100% matters of Facts and not matters of law, so it becomes almost impossible for them to get it kicked out of court on a rule 12(B) motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best approach for you is to pursue the identity theft angle. Maybe you never even saw the card. I had an unsolicted credit card stolen from my mailbox and used by the thief. That was an easy one to get fixed. You have to play detective for while.

I would try to get as many billing statements as possible for this account. I would then look at the charges and see what was purchased, and where. Mine had 10,000in software materials purchased from a company in India. Yeah, like I'd do that any time soon. You may even be able to establish a pattern where the ID thief went to the same places frequently. (pal owns a liquor store, etc) You may then be able to get signed copies of some charge slips, obviously the signature won't match yours. If you can build a strong documented case for ID theft, it should be no problem getting the judgment vacated and / or get this removed from your credit report.

I've done all of the above. The fraud happened in 2008-2009, and I found out about it in 2011. I've gotten a total of 4 receipts that the merchants saved, out of a known 150 transactions. (Ameridink only had 3 months of "Statements" to mail to me. most the of the locations are fast food joints and chain stores)

I also had the judgement vacated. The judgment that was vacated was from AmeridinkSubsidiary. It is fully vacated, off the credit report. Done and Done.

What remains, that I would like to have removed, is the original creditor Ameridink's tradeline. (This reflects the OC Ameridink Account before it was transferred or sold to AmeridinkSubsidiary.) This tradeline shows nearly 2 full years of delinquency, which makes sense, because I didn't find out about it for 2 years.

I'm not sure if I'm going to address the lawyer abandonment issue right now, it's not super important to my immediate needs. Going pro se is going to be a far faster method for getting this stuff taken care of.

I've also put all 3 bureaus on notice. They continue to write back alleging that Ameridink has "verified" the accounts, but won't confirm the method used to verify just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.