Midland Funding, Attorney-in-Fact Christina Paperman, & Dreaded Affidavit of Sale

[Huey Pilot]

Midlands one two combination of Bill of Sale and Affidavit of sale seem to be getting a lot of traction with various courts around the country.

The Affidavit of Sale on a phony Chase letterhead signed by Christina Paperman as Attorney-in-Fact on behalf Chase and Notarized by Jenny Salazar from the State of Florida County of Seminole needs a consistent strategy to defeat.

Judges that don't know the practicing ethic's of Midland's attorneys take this a absolute fact and credit card law suits have no chance.

Case in example:

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(0far4e55mkdjts45fuucvkyu)/download.aspx?ID=169980

Would like to discuss some effective methods on striking these documents, how to time the motions, and possibly some templates. Most importantly we need to know how to stop them before we get to court or Arbitration.

I personally would like to know how to incorporate striking these documents in a Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment filed after discovery and provided with these two documents, Cardmember Agreement,Debt Notification Letter,and a real basic unsigned Exhiibit C Closing Statement?.

Do I have to motion to strike these documents individually or can I incorporate both in one Motion.

HP

[Coltfan1972]

Huey,

Chalk another one up to a pro-se defendant not following the proper procedure and arguing lack of privity. This is for summary judgement and not an appeal. Just a horrible job by the pro-se. This is no way helps the other side. To the contrary, it helps us. It shows what not to do and what not to plead.

The court made Midland at least furnish some hearsay. If you read the case, the Defendant did not even file a supplemental response when the court made Midland at least come up with some hearsay.

Let me quote a few important quotes from the court.

"The Court recognizes that Defendant raises a valid concern, but she does not proffer any good faith basis to support her contention."

"She specifically denied any contractual relationship with the Plaintiff."

(Lack of Privity, affirmative defense)

"While Defendant responded to the initial motion, she did not file any supplemental response to Plaintiff’s December 16th supplemental submission."

"Defendant did not file any competing affidavits or other evidence challenging the trustworthiness or propriety of the subject affidavits."

Translation- If the Defendant would have filed an affidavit, there would have been dueling affidavits, and that would mean a material fact to decide at trial.

"the non-moving party may not rest on her own pleadings, but must provide evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial."

Translation- See above.

"At oral argument, the Court shared its concern as to perceived gaps in the chain of title in the documents proffered by Plaintiff as proof of wnership."

Translation from the judge- "Dang Ms. Pro-Se, I know Midland's case is crap, but you're going to have to help me here. I can't jump down from the bench and represent you."

"No discovery was taken by Defendant. She herself failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Requests for Admission."

"Moreover, she offers no reasoned analysis as to why this Court should rule

in her favor."

Translation- You have to argue your case.

"Defendant appears to bootstrap her argument questioning the reliability of the affidavits, one of which she erroneously maintains is part of the record

before this Court, to unrelated New York litigation."

Hell, she has the judge using the term "bootstrap" They were in a Delaware court and she used a New York case.

"Her contentions are unsupported and conclusory."

"However, as stated infra, this point is moot as Defendant does not appear to dispute." "Rather, she denies a contractual relationship with this Plaintiff"

Translation from Coltfan- So how's that affirmative defense working out for you?

"Defendant failed to submit any evidence."

Do we really need another train?

"Defendant has failed to disclose any evidence to this Court which would demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact for trial."

:private:

You can't just see a case where Midland won and assume the ruling means bad news for the consumers. As I said above, this case actually is a wonderful case. It shows what not to do and what kind of arguments, that if made, would have defeated Midland. The judge did everything but say just that.

Deep dive into the cases, it's not always bad when the consumer is defeated. Bad for that one consumer, but they only have themselves to blame.

Generally speaking, if you don't file discovery, don't answer Midland's discovery, argue a losing affirmative defense, argue a different states case law when plenty of relevant state law is available (for Christ's sake, the were in the bank capital of the world, Delaware), don't dispute, and don't submit any evidence, you have a better chance of hitting the power ball, than winning with the above trial strategy.

[Huey Pilot]

I agree this case is a total disaster and that was the reason for the request for discussion. I have read this case at least 3 times with considerable take away.

Prevention from a Defendants prospective seems to involve quote "Dueling Affidavits". I have been provided the referenced Dual Documents and this case further proved how effective they can be for the Plaintiff if not dealt with. That's the real question. You have to really brow beat Midland with requests for discovery and meet and confers just to obtain the 5 exhibits they provide. Depending on their attorney it's not always easy.

Question one:

What affidavits can defendant provide when you have absolutely no discoverable documents. Are we talking about Motions to Strike, Subpoenas or what.

Question two:

This Robo-signed form letter "AOS 2011.8" (Affidavit of Sale) with the phony Chase Letterhead, Signed by Christina Paperman and notarized, attesting to a review of Chases Records at or near the time of occurrences set forth therein from information transmitted by, a person having knowledge of those matters, and kept in the ordinary course of Chase's business, Mr Joe Debtor had a credit card with Chase #1111222233334444. The account was sold and transferred to Midland, on or about April 1st, 2012. At the time of sale to Midland due on the account pursuant to the terms of the cardholder agreement between Chase and Mr Joe Debtor was $5000.00

The records of Chase indicate that the last payment on the account was made on April 1st of 2009.

Chase has no further interest in the said account for any purpose.

On behalf of Chase bank USA, NA

by/s/_________________

Christina Paperman

Attorney-in-Fact

State of Florida County of Seminole (Can we affidavit them with the Allemonte Doc? its from the Same State and County - That was worth what, 5 million?)

I would like to see a post on creating a rebutle and strike of the hearsay travisty and am willing to do any research necessary to help. Ideas anyone?

HP

[Coltfan1972]

You hit the person writing the affidavit, or Midland, with a ton of admissions and destroy their credibility.

You just show they are basically swearing their records show a balance and an account due. Like the checkbook register example I always give. You would just show, with admissions and interrogatories, that there is no real knowledge, there is no realtionship with the original creditor other than buying in bulk and they have no idea to the exact record keeping of the specific account in question.

It's just laying the foundation for hearsay and discrediting the person writing the affidavit. Personally, I think you are way, way over thinking this. It's what we talk about in just about every Midland thread.

It's just the same Midland b.s. but since the Defendant just let the train run her over it looks really bad when written by the court. The judge, on their motion basically, made Midland provide more evidence. It was hearsay but made them provide. The judge tried to help but the Defendant could not ready between the lines.

In my opinion, this is a non issue, and if you can't beat a Midland affidavit or bill of sale, you have no chance going deeper into the lawsuit. I understand you wanting to really dive into this, but we do it in just about every Midland thread. That is where we had so much fun in the thread about lack of standing, when Midland's rebuttal was it was not "feasible" to meet their burden for standing, when properly challenged.

All the poster did was ask for info on her specific account in the bulk sale. Nothing fancy, just how do you know my account was included in the sale. That one question wrecked Midland's whole claim.

[drummer55]

Huey under the arbitration rules you can “attempt” to subpoena (for an appearance at the arbitration) anyone who has signed an affidavit that they are relying on for proof of ownership of the debt.

UTCR chapter 13 covers arbitration (uniform trial court rules).

[mommamia3]

or can you use their crappy affidavit, bos, and lack of providing the alleged contract to prove your affirmative defense of lack of privity? If they can't prove that you alleged owe them using these then can't you in turn utilize the same pieces of 'evidence' to show that you don't?

[LR_Knight]

Just google Chase and Robosigning and you will see Chase has been in a fire storm regarding their collection practices and robo signing. I am pretty new to this and also have my own Midland related thread going. But to me this was more a out the defendant not being prepared more than it was the affidivat.

[usagi555]

or can you use their crappy affidavit, bos, and lack of providing the alleged contract to prove your affirmative defense of lack of privity? If they can't prove that you alleged owe them using these then can't you in turn utilize the same pieces of 'evidence' to show that you don't?

In lack of privity, you are trying to prove that there are no contractual obligations between you and the plaintiff. Their evidence does not prove this. It just fails to prove that there is a contractual obligation between the two parties.

Take this statement: The sky is blue. It is something that, barring clouds, massive dust or nighttime, is known to be true. If you've never seen the sky because you are a morlock, and I present you with a black and white photo of the sky on a cloudless day at noon, I have just presented you with evidence that does not prove that the sky is blue. But, you, not actually being a morlock, know that the sky is blue anyway. On the other hand, if I show up with an unaltered color photo, your inner morlock may believe me that the sky is blue, because I have now provided you with convincing evidence.

JDBs show up with the equivalent of black and white photos for evidence. You're going to prove very little with what they present. On top of that, their claims are far more dubious than stating something as simple as "the sky is blue."

[Huey Pilot]

Just google Chase and Robosigning and you will see Chase has been in a fire storm regarding their collection practices and robo signing. I am pretty new to this and also have my own Midland related thread going. But to me this was more a out the defendant not being prepared more than it was the affidivat.

Thanks!

You're absolutely correct. The mini-version was learning and prevention. The object was their phony Affidavit signed by a fore mentioned attorney, and a good example of what Midland is willing to prompt their attorney franchise's on what to do. I loved the "Dueling Affidavit's" remark and was wondering what other affidavit's I could hit them with I might be missing. Co-incidently the Midland vs Brent (Mn) case featuring the famed Alemonte Sworn and Notarized affidavit from former Chase employee exposing the Roto-Signing program and putting the "Roto-Signing" term in the Webster's Dictionary/Funk & Wagnel is from the same Florida county as the Affidavit of sale sworn & attested Chase document in this post. They must be master robo-signers out of that Florida office.

HP

[mommamia3]

so how would you prove, in this case, lack of privity? How do you prove the lack of something?? Is that why they suggest that you can't properly claim this as an affirmative defense?

[Huey Pilot]

so how would you prove, in this case, lack of privity? How do you prove the lack of something?? Is that why they suggest that you can't properly claim this as an affirmative defense?

Thanks for your inquiry,

The forum has had a ton of posts on how useless the "Lack of Privity" Affirmative Defense can sometimes be and this a good example of why not to use it. ("I never signed anything with the JDB so they can't sue me your honor") The suggestions are to focus a majority of your defenses (Interogitories, Requests for admissions, Requests for production of documents/exhibits, motions to strike, motions to complel etc...) on destroying the (Bill of Sale-Affidavit of Sale documents) early and often. Object to everything about them and the seven points of Standing and contract authenticity. Also in my case "Don't over think" the obvious.

Kind regards,

HP

[usagi555]

so how would you prove, in this case, lack of privity? How do you prove the lack of something?? Is that why they suggest that you can't properly claim this as an affirmative defense?

You don't prove lack of privity in this case. The burden of proof to show that there is a contractual obligation between both parties is not on the defendant. Claiming lack of privity as an affirmative defense and arguing only that as your defense is a losing proposition because it changes that. The plaintiff's burden to prove that there is a contractual obligation between the defendant and the plaintiff turns into the defendant's burden to prove that there is no contractual obligation between the the two parties. Sure, you might be able to unsuccessfully raise lack of privity while simultaneously blocking the plaintiff's attempts to show that it does have standing, but that's because you would actually be attempting to do two different things.

There is a difference between you proving that there is no contractual agreement between you and the plaintiff and the plaintiff failing to prove that there is a contractual obligation between the two of you. I could say "the sky is blue" and show you a black and white photo, and it would prove nothing. I could also say "the sky is neon green" and show you a black and white photo and it would still prove nothing. It wouldn't settle what color the sky actually is. JDBs pull the same crap when they say that they own your account. They show you a black and white photo. You object based on the fact that the photo does not show color and proves nothing pertinent to the color of the sky, even if what it did depict was 100% accurate. (You also object because JDB evidence is hearsay, but that's another story.)

Lack of privity might be a better defense if, say, you had hard evidence that you were a victim of identity theft, and the person who stole your identity was also the same person who took out the card.

[Coltfan1972]

or can you use their crappy affidavit, bos, and lack of providing the alleged contract to prove your affirmative defense of lack of privity? If they can't prove that you alleged owe them using these then can't you in turn utilize the same pieces of 'evidence' to show that you don't?

Did you even read the case? That is how she LOST, doing what you suggest.

[BV80]

so how would you prove, in this case, lack of privity? How do you prove the lack of something?? Is that why they suggest that you can't properly claim this as an affirmative defense?

In a credit card case, privity can be established with cc statements that show charges and payments. A credit card agreement is based upon use and acceptance. Accepting a credit card and using evidences an agreement between you and the cc company. The JDB steps into the shoes of the creditor when they buy the account. They have privity.

However, once you've shown the JDB can't prove they own the account and have no standing to sue, that automatically throws privity out the window. If the JDB has no standing to sue, they haven't stepped into the shoes of the OC. Therefore, they can't have a contractual relationship with you...no privity.

Lack of standing can take care of it.

[drummer55]

In a credit card case, privity can be established with cc statements that show charges and payments. A credit card agreement is based upon use and acceptance. Accepting a credit card and using evidences an agreement between you and the cc company. The JDB steps into the shoes of the creditor when they buy the account. They have privity.

However, once you've shown the JDB can't prove they own the account and have no standing to sue, that automatically throws privity out the window. If the JDB has no standing to sue, they haven't stepped into the shoes of the OC. Therefore, they can't have a contractual relationship with you...no privity.

Lack of standing can take care of it.

i wish I could triple like this and then rig it so that everyone who comes into the site has to read it.

[mommamia3]

In a credit card case, privity can be established with cc statements that show charges and payments. A credit card agreement is based upon use and acceptance. Accepting a credit card and using evidences an agreement between you and the cc company. The JDB steps into the shoes of the creditor when they buy the account. They have privity.

However, once you've shown the JDB can't prove they own the account and have no standing to sue, that automatically throws privity out the window. If the JDB has no standing to sue, they haven't stepped into the shoes of the OC. Therefore, they can't have a contractual relationship with you...no privity.

Lack of standing can take care of it.

Thanks Coltfan and BV80. I hear what you are saying and no, I haven't read the case. In my head, it seems once you prove lack of standing many of the other affirmative defenses fall into place. It seems logical to me that you can't have privity if you can't prove you even have standing. As a first time pro per I may be mistaken but that is why I turn to you experienced guys/gals to ask !

[usagi555]

Thanks Coltfan and BV80. I hear what you are saying and no, I haven't read the case. In my head, it seems once you prove lack of standing many of the other affirmative defenses fall into place. It seems logical to me that you can't have privity if you can't prove you even have standing. As a first time pro per I may be mistaken but that is why I turn to you experienced guys/gals to ask !

Again, you don't need to prove lack of standing. You need to make them fail to prove standing through processes such as discovery and objections. Just because somebody fails to prove something does not make it untrue, it just means that they sued you and were unable to prove their case.

To draw a parallel from criminal, it is not the defendant's burden to prove his or her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that Casey Anthony actually did it? Do you think that OJ actually did it? Even if they did, the prosecution failed to prove they did beyond a reasonable doubt. The failure to prove the case doesn't mean that they didn't do what they were accused of. While the bar that a plaintiff has to jump over in civil is much lower than in criminal, it is still the same concept. If you are sued by Midland, they may legitimately own your debt. Their case will still fail if they fail to prove that fact. There is no lack of privity, just a failure to prove that your contractual obligation is to them.

[Big Time]

Sometimes there is a middleman between the OC and JDB that only packages and resells portfolio's of debt, but lately it would seem that the JDB's are skipping the middleman and buying directly from the OC's with the option to purchase additional documentation from them if they need to.

A sworn denial would have helped the defendant in this case.

[mommamia3]

Did you even read the case? That is how she LOST, doing what you suggest.

but there is A LOT more going on here then her including an affirmative defense of 'lack of privity'.

If I understand it correctly she based her entire defense on the fact that she owed, just not the JDB. It didn't help that she never answered their discovery, never conducted any discovery of her own, cited out-of-state caselaw at trial, did not challenge affidavit or billing statements except at trial.

I think if you have spent any quality time on this board we ALL know better than to head to trial under the above circumstances. What is it you all say?

Do your homework and you have a great chance to WIN! She didn't and she lost. Agreed?

[Coltfan1972]

She didn't and she lost. Agreed?

Yeah, of course I agree. I put just some of her screw ups in post # 2. Her case/defense was a debacle from start to finish and she deserved to lose, and lose badly.

[mommamia3]

Yeah, of course I agree. I put just some of her screw ups in post # 2. Her case/defense was a debacle from start to finish and she deserved to lose, and lose badly.

I hear ya Coltfan. Not egging you on, just making sure I understand

[Coltfan1972]

I hear ya Coltfan. Not egging you on, just making sure I understand

It's all good, we're on the same page.

[gwheelock915]

She probably also requested dv using that 3 page letter floating around the web.

[Huey Pilot]

Huey under the arbitration rules you can “attempt” to subpoena (for an appearance at the arbitration) anyone who has signed an affidavit that they are relying on for proof of ownership of the debt.

UTCR chapter 13 covers arbitration (uniform trial court rules).

The issue here is prevention of a similar train-wreck. Unless you have a court date you can't subpoena a witness so you are stuck with an objection via some kind of opposing Affidavit in objection to be on record. Unless you get an objection to those, you may not be able to get a motion to strike. So I it appears the best thing to do is send off some more discovery requests for admissions, if you have any left, object by affidavit so you preserve your objections on record and get a court date so we can send off subpoenas. The objections should prevent a MSJ from Plaintiff.

HP

[drummer55]

The issue here is prevention of a similar train-wreck. Unless you have a court date you can't subpoena a witness so you are stuck with an objection via some kind of opposing Affidavit in objection to be on record. Unless you get an objection to those, you may not be able to get a motion to strike. So I it appears the best thing to do is send off some more discovery requests for admissions, if you have any left, object by affidavit so you preserve your objections on record and get a court date so we can send off subpoenas. The objections should prevent a MSJ from Plaintiff.

HP

I'm not seeing where we need a court date to be able to subpoena a witness. I might have missed it but this is what it says about being able to subpoena during arbitration.

http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/docs/programs/utcr/2011_UTCR_ch13.pdf

13.150 SUBPOENA

In accordance with the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, a lawyer of record or the arbitrator may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness at the arbitration hearing or for the production of documentary evidence at the hearing.