dlee5853

Pre-Trial Fast Approaching in Oklahoma

Recommended Posts

See the attached plaintiff's chain of title.pdf   in post number 3 BV80. It's on around page 9 of the .pdf. It states his Title is a "member".

 

Oh and believe me Saytar, I'm fighting, I'm fighting all the way to trial! It's been 2 years of this mess and I'm sick of it. Win or Lose, I'm going to trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I motion to dismiss due to lack of standing, what evidence do I squash? The chain of title?

 

Also, what and how do I argue the card member agreements? Can someone take a look at those and see if there's anything in there that may help me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dlee5853

 

So far, none of their documentation (bill of sale, credit card statements, cardmember agreement) has been authenticated.  The records are hearsay, but hearsay can be admissible under certain circumstances. 

 

 

Read the business record exception (Oklahoma Rule of Evidence 2803(6)).   It's an exception to the hearsay rule which allows business records to be admissible if the proper foundation is laid.    In order to lay that foundation, the rule shows what must be testified to either by affidavit or live witness.  (Records were made in the regular course of business, etc.)  

 

If they have no witness, there's nothing that references the language in that rule.  Therefore, the proper foundation has not been laid for the admission of those records, so they should be inadmissible hearsay.

 

However, if they do have a witness, take a look at this copy of the following deposition.  A NJ defense attorney questioned a JDB witness who was testifying for a JDB.   His questions were designed to show that the witness had absolutely no knowledge of the original creditor's methods of record creation and maintenance and no way of being able to assure that the records provided were accurate.

 

http://www.philipstern.com/files/2011.01.13.Galic_Deposition_Transcript.REDACTED.pdf

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QKGJYpkr85UJ:www.govcollect.org/files/Oklahoma_Debt_Collection_Laws.pdf+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

For Charles Litow

Attorneys not licensed to practice law in Oklahoma, who are retained by a client to vindicate their client’s legal rights, are required to obtain an Oklahoma bar license, as practicing law in the state without a proper license is considered the unauthorized practice of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@racecar

 

Is Convergence a client of Litow, or is Litow an owner?   That's what needs to be discovered.

 

I checked both OK bar and the Iowa bar but could not find evidence of Litow's license with either state.  There's some case law in which Litow represented parties, but there's nothing after 2010.  I wonder if he's no longer a practicing attorney?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interesting is the fact that Hood and Stacy, and specifically Nicholas Hood is the Associate P.A. who was the author of that article is also the attorney representing the Plaintiff in my case.

 

And I get your point Racecar, because Litow is an attorney who purchases debt is retaining the other client Hood and Stacy, or Nicholas Hood to prosecute this lawsuit. ....see this article that Litow wrote:  http://www.nationallist.com/enewsletter/articles/debt-buying-basics/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a BBB search on Convergence Receivables a long time ago and it came back with "the business has no rating because the BBB has information indicating is is out of business."  this was last year, and it was on Convergence Receivables LC, 847 E Ave. N.E., Cedar Rapids IA 52402

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another good article written by  attorney Ronald S. Canter of Rockville, Maryland, was a featured speaker at the recent DBA International annual conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. DBA International is a trade association of experienced, knowledgeable and ethical debt buyers that provides educational and networking opportunities to its members through its annual conferences.

 

 

http://www.nationallist.com/?id=144

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of Litow and Pech's clients have included:  Asset Acceptance, Capital One Bank, NCO Portfolio Management Inc., Citibank South Dakota NA, Cavalry Portfolio Services LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Convergence Receivables LC, HSBC Bank Nevada NA, North Star Acquisition, LLC, Liberty Credit Services, Inc. and Discover Bank.

Attorneys for Litow and Pech: Charles Litow, Piper Lori hughes, Christoper Pech, James Mcdonald, and John N. Elvert.

 

CHARLES L. LITOW is the Incorporator/Organizer of CONVERGENCE RECEIVABLES L.C., registered in Arkansas.

Read more: http://businessprofiles.com/details/convergence-receivables-l-c/US-AR-811008834/charles-l-litow#ixzz2jiqQYvNJ

 

 No Payment Letter, Notice to Cure, Lawsuit Letter and Response to Verification Request.

 

http://johnsonlawfirmia.com/litow_law_office.html one of the good guys

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's rather odd, how can Convergence Receivables be a client of Litow and Pech when Litow is the incorporator/organizer of Convergence Receivables???  Pretty deceptive if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dlee5853

 

So far, none of their documentation (bill of sale, credit card statements, cardmember agreement) has been authenticated.  The records are hearsay, but hearsay can be admissible under certain circumstances. 

 

 

Read the business record exception (Oklahoma Rule of Evidence 2803(6)).   It's an exception to the hearsay rule which allows business records to be admissible if the proper foundation is laid.    In order to lay that foundation, the rule shows what must be testified to either by affidavit or live witness.  (Records were made in the regular course of business, etc.)  

 

If they have no witness, there's nothing that references the language in that rule.  Therefore, the proper foundation has not been laid for the admission of those records, so they should be inadmissible hearsay.

 

However, if they do have a witness, take a look at this copy of the following deposition.  A NJ defense attorney questioned a JDB witness who was testifying for a JDB.   His questions were designed to show that the witness had absolutely no knowledge of the original creditor's methods of record creation and maintenance and no way of being able to assure that the records provided were accurate.

 

http://www.philipstern.com/files/2011.01.13.Galic_Deposition_Transcript.REDACTED.pdf

Oklahoma for the most part pretty much mirrors the Federal Rules of Procedure.

 

IF they show up with no physical witness (Even if they do) I'd just proceed to question the document itself and/or the affients personal knowledge of ALL the facts in it......don't believe that the judge will mind, because without someone to "authenticate" the document is is just so much wipe. If he does mind he will let you know real quick whether he will accept it or not (but you need to raise an objection to allowing it be read into evidence). Like I said earlier, IF the judge is honest and diligent the affidavit (you gotta question and object to it) by and of it's self is worthless.

 

You just got some good info today from everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's rather odd, how can Convergence Receivables be a client of Litow and Pech when Litow is the incorporator/organizer of Convergence Receivables???  Pretty deceptive if you ask me.

These people are JDB.........there is no honesty or morality among ANY of them. None of them should ever live in glass house's ...... or downrange in deer season. xtookewlx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I motion to dismiss due to lack of standing, what evidence do I squash? The chain of title?

 

Also, what and how do I argue the card member agreements? Can someone take a look at those and see if there's anything in there that may help me?

 

 

 

So if I motion to dismiss due to lack of standing, what evidence do I squash? The chain of title?

 

Also, what and how do I argue the card member agreements? Can someone take a look at those and see if there's anything in there that may help me?

Argue Both the affidavit AND the chain of title. Why hit them with a .22 when .45 will work also.

 

Heres something to help with hearsay and evidence.   EvidenceRules.pdf

 

To look over your discovery Discovery in Civil Matters.docx

 

Over View of Okla Civil Procedures   Title12_Civil Procedure.docx

 

Defense of Consumer Lawsuits  Substantive_Defenses_to_Consumer_Debt_Collection_Suits_t.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Court held in Jones v. State, 660 P.2d 634, 642-43 (Okl.Cr. 1983), that a letter from a doctor who had examined the defendant, introduced by the State, was inadmissible because the foundational requirements of 12 O.S. 1981, § 2803(6) had not been met. "It was not necessary to call the doctor who wrote the letter, but it was necessary to call someone who could testify that the report was in fact made at or near the time and by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of the circumstances reported." Id. at 643. Likewise, in this case, petitioner did not meet the foundational requirements of section 2803(6), therefore the documents were inadmissible. Therefore, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not admitting the documents or continuing the hearing sua sponte.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dlee5853

 

I don't know that Convergence is a client of Litow's.  It looks like he's either a partner or possibly in-house counsel.

 

BTW, that company was registered in Iowa, as well, but whether it's current or not, I don't know.

 

They also had (or still have) a fictitious name.  LT Financial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure he is the owner / partner.

I just know he buys a lot of debt and files suit all over the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Court held in Jones v. State, 660 P.2d 634, 642-43 (Okl.Cr. 1983), that a letter from a doctor who had examined the defendant, introduced by the State, was inadmissible because the foundational requirements of 12 O.S. 1981, § 2803(6) had not been met. "It was not necessary to call the doctor who wrote the letter, but it was necessary to call someone who could testify that the report was in fact made at or near the time and by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of the circumstances reported." Id. at 643. Likewise, in this case, petitioner did not meet the foundational requirements of section 2803(6), therefore the documents were inadmissible. Therefore, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not admitting the documents or continuing the hearing sua sponte.

 

Thank you detzapper! I appreciate the help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dlee5853

 

I don't know that Convergence is a client of Litow's.  It looks like he's either a partner or possibly in-house counsel.

 

BTW, that company was registered in Iowa, as well, but whether it's current or not, I don't know.

 

They also had (or still have) a fictitious name.  LT Financial.

 

I agree, it appears that he is the founder of the company. BUT, would that really make a difference in this lawsuit?  He's using a different business name to file suit, it doesn't really make it illegal, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should not worry any more about this guy he is just a distraction and get back to your defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether he's an attorney or owner doesn't matter.  What matters is that he has never worked for the OC (hopefully he hasn't).   While he may have knowledge of how Convergence creates its own records, the records being offered were not created by Convergence.  Nor were those records created by the business entity from which Convergence purchased the records.

 

He has no knowledge of the procedures of the OC to create and maintain records.  He has no knowledge of the OC's procedures to ensure the accuracy of information included in those records.

 

In addition, Convergence did not acquire the records from the OC.  He will be testifying about records that Convergence purchased from another business that ALLEGEDLY purchased them from Chase.  

 

The Chase bill of sale does not reference you or an account number ("an" account number...not "your" account number).  There is nothing from Chase that verifies that an account in your name was sold to anyone.  IF the 1st JDB did purchase accounts from Chase, where's the proof that an account in your name was included in the sale?   Just because they may have records with your name doesn't mean those records weren't included by mistake. 

 

Because RECORDS of an account in your name were allegedly included in the sale between the 1st JDB and Convergence, it's being assumed that an ACCOUNT (not just the records) in your name was included between Chase and the 1st JDB.  But the alleged Chase bill of sale does not prove that claim.  Therefore, he will be testifying about records:

 

1.  for an account that is assumed to have been included in a sale between Chase and another business entity and

 

2.  that were not created by the entity from which Convergence allegedly purchased the records.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's also a little ironic is that they don't plan on having the person who signed the affidavit (Dan Sauerbrel) as a witness. They stated they intended to call an employee of the Plaintiff, Charlie Litow to testify to the creation, use, accounting, default, sale or assignment, if any, and remaining balance of the account in question. Plaintiff may also call additional witness identified during discovery and any necessary rebutal witnesses . Plaintiff reserves the right to amend its witness list prior to trial.

 

Now Charlie Litow, is the person who supposedly signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Global Acceptance and Convergence Receivables, L.C. Basically an employee of the Plaintiff.

Charles Litow is an attorney who practices in Iowa and Missouri and has handled JDB clients for years, who was representing his client Asset Acceptance LLC against me until he sold out to his old partner, who is continuing a lot of Litow's cases in progress.  He is also an agent for Convergence Receivables, L.C. buying jdb loans from other parties. Litow lawfirm was taken over by Pech, Hughes & McDonald on June 1, 2013 out of their Cedar Rapids, Iowa office.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should not worry any more about this guy he is just a distraction and get back to your defenses.

Exactly Racecar! I do appreciate everyone's opinion on this topic however. Now to find case law to back up my defenses in Oklahoma. I'm planning on going to trial!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another question. I did not file an affidavit when I filed my answer to the summons. Is it too late to add an affidavit from me stating the following:

 

AFFIDAVIT

I, me, BEING DULY CAUTIONED AND SWORN THAT ANY STATEMENTS MADE HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO PERJURY, STATES THE FOLLOWING IS BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF:

1. I am over 18 years of age and competent to give this affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts
 
set forth herein, all of which are true to the best of my belief.

2. I am acting pro se in the above named action.

3. Plaintiff's AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM is without merit and has no factual basis under the rules of evidence. It
 does not set forth a factual basis to support a claim of personal knowledge of the matter at issue and failed to make assertions based on personal knowledge as per Oklahoma Statute §12-2056 (E).

4. Defendant avers that she never entered into an agreement with CONVERGENCE RECEIVABLES, LC.

5. Defendant has no recollection or records of the alleged agreement or the alleged debt within the Plaintiff’s Petition and disputes the validity of any alleged agreement, any alleged debt, the alleged amount owed, and the manner in which it was allegedly calculated.

6. Defendant never received or agreed to the terms of any alleged agreement with the Plaintiff and the alleged
 agreement, that was referenced by the Plaintiff’s Affiant, was not attached to the Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Account as per Oklahoma Statute§12-2056 (E). 

7. Plaintiff has not provided admissible evidence of indebtedness on behalf of the Defendant, therefore upon 
information and belief Defendant denies the allegations set forth in the Plaintiff’s Petition and Affidavit of 
Account.

8. Defendant disputes and challenges the Plaintiff’s standing to bring suit on the alleged debt that is the basis of the
 Petition.

Share this post


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