cookie74

Rebuttal of lawyer to answers

Recommended Posts

Cookie, I think you have something pretty good there, however I think you need to stick one more nail in their coffin. Take out your Pre Se license a bit and sum it all up for the judge concerning the entirety of their case with one final paragraph. State something along the lines that all these records came through Unifund and they have been found to repeatedly falsify affidavits under oath, what happens to those records in a business to business transaction. There fore this court, the defendant and not even plaintiff can determine the validity of any Unifund provided documentation without a thorough examination at trial. Here is the one place you are going to want to cite cases from all over the county rather than just the MI case, to show it is not a one time occurrence.

If you throw all this down the most likely thing to occur is they will dismiss the whole case as they will realize there is no way to win. However as much as this guy loves to pile on the legal BS the one unlikely alternative is he will just try to plow forward with false documentation like my EX's lawyer. In the end that guy fought with perjury right into a disbarment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

State something along the lines that all these records came through Unifund and they have been found to repeatedly falsify affidavits under oath,

I think this would be objected to and sustained. What the poster needs to do is file a motion, then they can support it with all the case law against these chooches. Just throwing it out there that they did this in the past is like bringing up past conduct in a criminal matter. An affidavit made in bad faith might fly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was trying to keep mine from saying 'cause I say so, sometimes I know what I want to say but putting into a decently constructed sentence is hard, I knew I should have paid more attention in English class!

Simple English is best, don't worry about legalese. My lawyer always tells me to keep the language very basic and therefore it's not subject to interpretation.

For instance, some native tribe (sorry, don't know which one) won the rights to their land against the US Government because of an old treaty which stated, "The land is the _________ tribe's to use as long as the rivers run and the rain falls down from the sky". In other words, forever.

Keep legalese from the documents and you will make things simpler for you to understand and leave no doubt of its intentions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this would be objected to and sustained. What the poster needs to do is file a motion, then they can support it with all the case law against these chooches. Just throwing it out there that they did this in the past is like bringing up past conduct in a criminal matter. An affidavit made in bad faith might fly.

I have used something very much like this on the advice of a lawyer. It is perfectly acceptable at this point where they are looking for a judge to make a MSJ and the judge is the trier of fact. It would never make it at trial or in front of a jury. Past conduct can be used to expand discovery or the delving into the veracity of a witness, you are just showing in plan simple Pro Se terms why at a minimum trial is required for further examine the evidence they want to use. At the worst it is going to take them a whole bunch of motion practice to get one statement stricken, which mean they spend more money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that I haven't seen it before.

You have more than enough opposition to their MSD to prevail thanks to the good folks here on CIC.

I prevailed against a plaintiff's MSD without really saying a word. The judge asked the plaintiff how they expected to use the documents from the OC (no authentication from them); the plaintiff replied "Oh, I think we can"; the judge said, "No you can't, MSD denied". Took all of five minutes.

With the advice you have here, and the case law you have in support .....you're golden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ya Cookie !

:)

I like what ya done so far too. I have my tag team(attorney debt collector) on the defensive posture right now.I have been throwing in the occasional rhetorical question when arguing the case law they present.Then they are forced to argue my intent of questioning their case law they start putting their foot in their mouth and reveal their own inadequacy of providing the case law in the first place.

I ain't that well versed in Legaleze either..... See Coltfans link

What He said.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I was off the grid for a few days. I put my daughter and Mom on a plane to my sisters yesterday and spend the day tracking the flight and waiting for my daughter to text me that they made the connection (in Atlanta no less) and that they landed safely. WEEE a week with no kid!

Back to my brief, I think I have it ready to go, will get the affidavit notarized today and get my discovery together and pop that in the mail also. Thank you everyone for all your insight and help could not have done it without you! I will keep you updated as to what happens with the motion, fingers crossed the judge tosses that and maybe the entire case but that may be a stretch. :D

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