saytar

County Hick Judge-Gave CACH Judgment-Didn't Even read Response

Recommended Posts

Well had court today.

 

Judge denied Motion to Compel Arbitration even though Card Agreement was from account in Question, didn't give a reason guess he wanted jurisdiction, wouldn't even look at My JAMS case paperwork ( JAMS accepted and gave me a Number and served me and plaintiff).

 

Talked with another attorney that hung around to talk with me, his business was done but he hung around till I was through...he wrote most of OK's Uniform Arbitration Act, he wanted to tell me not answering DV is a FDCPA violation...Betwee that and the overshadowing..least sophisticated consumer thing they pulled with their inital complaint (sent a payment form along with summons...as if it might have come from the court). Problem is getting an attorney to take it up....local ones don't seem interested.

 

Then we went into MSJ motion, attorney waived card statements around and judge gave him judgment. Judge didn't even try reading my Response ( flipped a page or two then quit looking at it), brought up affidavit deficiencies, bill of sale issues, fact that I DV'd them last year and disavowed entire account and got no response, nice guy he cut their attorney's fees in half ( then apologized to attorney big deal ). sarc

 

I'd have sworn the plaintiffs attorney had been under the judges desk on his knees earlier..........

 

Didn't appear he was interested in my Legal arguments and looked like a little obedient lap dog to plaintiffs attorney..........although plaintiffs attorney was very nervous and seemed relieved to have gotten his judgment, he was worried he knew he had no real case or argument.

 

I do know one thing.....if there is another I case will go for a motion for change of venue LOL. Can't stand a judge slobbering all over the paperwork!

 

Had in back of my mind that this County Bumpkin judge would pull just this......didn't think he'd do it without stating any justification. That's why I detailed all my points of law and Objected to his statements in the MSJ and moved to strike them in my Response, to preserve on appeal...............brought up the deficiencies of affidavit, bill of sale, affiants lack of qualifications (affidavit document specialist...not even a records keeper)......He didn't even respond to that, just got glassy eyed look.....a Plaintiffs Lap Dog.....

 

So filling out paperwork for "Petition in Error" for a de novo review and gathering up info, already got court clerk working to certify all filings and mail them to me for submission to Appeal Court with the Petition in Error.

 

Called JAMS and going to get them hold case open for awhile....if I can get a reversal I'm sure going to drag them right back in and cost them 5 times what they would get............even though I am collection proof and they won't get anything anyway LOL.

 

Anything else come to mind that I can do to make Plaintiffs Attorney miserable with? If I get my paupers affidavit ok'd (money, money, money) with Appeal Court I'll be looking at a Writ for Centaru if need be. At least on the Appeal there will be 3 judges taking a fresh look....and they only have the written record so maybe they will actually read it and apply law.

 

I'll try and get all the documents redacted an posted in a day or two...some up now. Check sig line for other post. type..type....type.......type........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it happened. Bet your in Leflore county, NE OK. most crooked county in OK. Go get em.

 

Almost as bad...Alfalfa, far NW OK........uneducated hicks. Obviously unable to read Response...or too lazy.

 

Working on Petition in Error now.............not really too hard as I covered all the evidence and plaintiffs conclusion with argument, citations and statuary law in motions and response......he addressed none of it, pure and simple abuse of authority. Might as well have been talking to the hand......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Harry.......................no where at no time did I ever admit. He didn't even look at my DV Exhibits (sent to them last year, and didn't admit in any admissions, or interogs ) denying the account in its entirety.

 

As for the MTC arb was jurisdictional he WANTED to keep jurisdiction...........denied it without any reasoning...just " I'm going to deny that" Wouldn't even look at my notice of service from JAMS.....it was already approved and both served.

 

He acted like he didn't really give a hoot or that it mattered one whit.As a matter of fact he didn't examine any of the monthly statements that I know of at least in court, just took the attorney's statement as fact.

 

Like I told someone else.......it appeared that the attorney had spent the morning on his knees under the judges desk.........................had a shiny bald dome on his head anyway..

 

For $716.00 dollars he drove 360 miles round trip for court, for a judgment on a 64 yr old, on SSDI, who hasn't worked at a job in over 5 yrs, owns no property, no non-exempt property (not much of either really ), no stocks, no bond, no inheritences, etc. From other postings here and on the "other board" it seems the JDB are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

 

He asked to $1,000.00 in attorney's fees...........judge cut it to $500.00..............and apologized to the attorney for his long drive.

 

Wish I could find that picture of the doll with the great big ole screw thru it...........might change my avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@saytar

 

Talked with another attorney that hung around to talk with me, his business was done but he hung around till I was through...he wrote most of OK's Uniform Arbitration Act, he wanted to tell me not answering DV is a FDCPA violation...Betwee that and the overshadowing..least sophisticated consumer thing they pulled with their inital complaint (sent a payment form along with summons...as if it might have come from the court). Problem is getting an attorney to take it up....local ones don't seem interested.

 

 

You said that when you requested validation, they sent you photocopies of statements.  If one of those statements showed the same amount for which they claimed you owe, then they validated. 

 

In regard to the payment form, if that's the same one that starts out "This law firm has begun a legal proceeding against you", there's no overshadowing.  Nor was there an attempt to make it appear as if it came from the courts because it has the law firm's letterhead at the top.  In addition, it says that the form "is for office information only".  There's no way that it can be perceived as a court document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Least sophisticated consumer" standard. Even though it had their letterhead on it, it arrived with no explanation, want to make payments.......see we're suing you if you don't......You don't have to fall for it for it to be overshadowing..............but getting an aggressive lawyer that can.........or will argue it is another.

 

I'll look at it again, but I don't believe it mentioned anything at all about they began a legal proceeding...........just a plain this is from a debt collector, if you'd like to make payment arrangements......................

 

He didn't even look at the statements.........just took what the attorney said as fact.........

 

I'm not really worried about it......................they can't collect it..............throw me in jail, execute me at dawn maybe, but collect nope, that requires something to collect on, I have nothing. I'll just keep looking for "leverage". And keep on appealing. They keep on spending and keep on not collecting......................

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Least sophisticated consumer" standard. Even though it had their letterhead on it, it arrived with no explanation, want to make payments.......

 

Yes, it did have an explanation.  It explained that the law firm tries to settle cases out of court.   That along with the law firm letterhead and "Office information only" shows it's not a court document.  There's no overshadowing or attempt to falsely imply that a document is from the court.

 

 

see we're suing you if you don't

 

 

They had already filed suit and were merely attempting to settle out of court.  That's allowed.

 

If you want to appeal, fine.  But you don't have any FDCPA claims based upon what you've posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it did have an explanation.  It explained that the law firm tries to settle cases out of court.   That along with the law firm letterhead and "Office information only" shows it's not a court document.  There's no overshadowing or attempt to falsely imply that a document is from the court.

 

 

 

They had already filed suit and were merely attempting to settle out of court.  That's allowed.

 

If you want to appeal, fine.  But you don't have any FDCPA claims based upon what you've posted.

 

That's not what another attorney who hung around said................and he was one of the primary drafter's of OK Uniform Arbitration Act.............so maybe not.......yet.

 

But he was talking about the DV and no verifcation from them. I think I have 3-4 months left to tackle that one. I'm not about trying to collect from the collector's, I could really care less about that (just have to pay taxes on it anyway ).....I just want them to spend lots to get anything.......................lots more. I may be easy, but I'm not going to be cheap....."didn't Mae West say that??".

 

Just cause its allowed doesn't make it "right". My problem with the collector's is that there trying to take from those that are already down and trying to push them down further......A lot of things are right, legal or allowed......................just not "right". Somebody that can afford to pay..............should.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sorry to hear it Saytar, especially since it was CACH. However, If you are collection proof then no damages to you anyway. I would make them work more.

If they sent you a payment form with a summons then I most certainly wouldn't rule out FDCPA violations, especially considering the fact that it is also the opinion of a practicing lawyer. I doubt they filed the payment stub with the court, so it should have been sent separate of the summons. I would think most legitimate business would have sent it prior to the filing of a lawsuit in the first place, but this is CACH you are dealing with.

 

in any event; continue to make them bleed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's changed the judges in OK are voted in without knowing the law. I remember going to court there in OK a few times. My attorneys father told him to take his law books with him to court to show the judge because these idiots did not know the law. Yep, that's Oklahoma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's changed the judges in OK are voted in without knowing the law. I remember going to court there in OK a few times. My attorneys father told him to take his law books with him to court to show the judge because these idiots did not know the law. Yep, that's Oklahoma.

 

Yea, that's one reason we have little to no legal citations or case's to cite, they try to discourage any competition to their racket..............sorry I was born and raised here and still............and the town idiot with dirt under his finger nails goes further than the one that spent years in school and thousands of dollar's learning how to keep dirty nails equipment fixed and working and him healthy gets the short end of the stick........they'd rather make a judge out some lower 10% of some nite school law class ex-ditch digger a Supreme Court judge and the educated one flipping burgers at McD's.

 

For years I've just avoided them as much as possible. Logic and common sense in profession's here is lacking...........and they try to keep anyone down who pose's a threat to their "manufactured world".

 

But I did spend 10yrs in my twenty's fighting the heck out of the "good ole boy network" at Tinker...............as a union steward and a major burr under their saddles.....got told by a WS-11 onetime not to take the same way home every nite.

 

This a a great state and most of what I call regular folks are great, head's in the sand a lot but OK.............it's just the Good Ole Boy network that keeps ruining it.

 

Very sorry to hear it Saytar, especially since it was CACH. However, If you are collection proof then no damages to you anyway. I would make them work more.

If they sent you a payment form with a summons then I most certainly wouldn't rule out FDCPA violations, especially considering the fact that it is also the opinion of a practicing lawyer. I doubt they filed the payment stub with the court, so it should have been sent separate of the summons. I would think most legitimate business would have sent it prior to the filing of a lawsuit in the first place, but this is CACH you are dealing with.

 

in any event; continue to make them bleed.

Count on the bleeding..........................Oh and that form, I answered I only had SSDI and Name, nothing else.................then when I filed my answer mentioned it declined to fully answer in my answer...............then included the original and the one I partially answered with my reply.

 

They ARE filed and part of the permanent court record with my answer..........I made sure of it because it was CACH......considering adding it but didn't argue that in Response sooooo probably not. But as an arbitration sticking point it might mean more.....If not, oh well.

 

One thing I've learned......even though it might not be official once you get something in the record ( make sure it don't bite you back )................it stays there.. Like planting a seed, it might grow into something useful later. Might just mention it, not use it as an item for the de novo review, but just a fact. Never know maybe one of the appeal judges might bite on it...................not going to use it as a review item......................but they are supposed to read thru the file............................"with a fresh look".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@saytar

 

I understand.  You're looking for some leverage; something to make them go away.   Check the photocopies of the credit card statements.  Did one of them show the amount being claimed?  If so, the debt was validated.   I believe you're in the 10th Circuit?

 

Maynard v. Cannon, Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (2010) citing Chaudry v. Gallerizzo, (4th Cir. 1999).

This provision is not intended to give a debtor a detailed accounting of debt to be collected. Instead, "[c]onsistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid."

 

The form from the law firm did not overshadow.  To "overshadow" means to contradict.  For instance, if an initial communication contains the 30-day notice, but also contains a statement "Pay Now" or "Due Upon Receipt", those demands that payment is due immediately contradict the 30-day notice to request validation.  That's overshadowing.

 

The only possible thing I can see that's wrong with the form is that it's stated that the law firm routinely tries to settle cases before a final disposition.   Then it mentions that making payment arrangements could freeze the interest rate on the debt at 0%.  

 

One could claim that those statements indicate that the law firm is suggesting to the consumer that judgment will be awarded to the plaintiff and that such a suggestion is intended to mislead the consumer into believing he doesn't stand a chance in court.    But I believe that claim would be really weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@saytar

 

I understand.  You're looking for some leverage; something to make them go away.   Check the photocopies of the credit card statements.  Did one of them show the amount being claimed?  If so, the debt was validated.   I believe you're in the 10th Circuit?

 

Maynard v. Cannon, Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (2010) citing Chaudry v. Gallerizzo, (4th Cir. 1999).

This provision is not intended to give a debtor a detailed accounting of debt to be collected. Instead, "[c]onsistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to eliminate the problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid."

 

The form from the law firm did not overshadow.  To "overshadow" means to contradict.  For instance, if an initial communication contains the 30-day notice, but also contains a statement "Pay Now" or "Due Upon Receipt", those demands that payment is due immediately contradict the 30-day notice to request validation.  That's overshadowing.

 

The only possible thing I can see that's wrong with the form is that it's stated that the law firm routinely tries to settle cases before a final disposition.   Then it mentions that making payment arrangements could freeze the interest rate on the debt at 0%.  

 

One could claim that those statements indicate that the law firm is suggesting to the consumer that judgment will be awarded to the plaintiff and that such a suggestion is intended to mislead the consumer into believing he doesn't stand a chance in court.    But I believe that claim would be really weak.

 

Yep, that's why I'm not really too hot on that one, personally I think that it IS a violation, at the least a veiled threat with court punishment behind it, but it would take a sharpie aggressive attorney to drive it home, if there is such a creature LOL..................the lack of validation one is different. I'm going to go thru my records and see if they sent ANYTHING back............if not I will probably check some attorney's on lack of validation and if one thinks he can nail them I'll let them go for it. But firstly I'm going to get the Appeal started.....make the mashed taters first, then the gravy..............Geez that makes me hungry, I miss GA, SC. AL.....those truck stop buffets down there were great. Up north not so much.

 

They didn't send a statement with the complaint from the court, just the complaint and the "choice". They didn't send any statements until I fussed.

 

I will try and get all the paperwork scanned into PDF, redacted and put them up in a day or two. Then we can pick it apart and see if I did something wrong or missed an angle. Didn't do it before, because of negativity at the time and not wanting "those mysterious unknown prying eyes" that fish the boards to pickup on much. I noticed CACH confidence go down when I quit posting much about my case....I do know that there are some decent attorneys over in T town that do troll, one advertise's here.....and if they do, so do the ugly trolls. This CACH attorney is probably mid thirty's or so...........technically adept age, but he was quite edgy at court and somewhat unsure, he just got lucky and got a hick judge. Then maybe that's just me. I have gone thru court records here for past 4 yrs and I haven't seen any that got to MSJ hearing and only 3-5 that even answered properly.....or at all.....................99% in this county just roll over or answer "I can't pay as an answer". In all probability this may only one of 2 or 3 that he may have seen in court since he was a judge in the last 8-10 yrs he's been judge. Most money judgement suits here are a local business suing a local, in other words a retailer with all the records and solid verifiable proof.Or the local drunk or druggie that hasn't made the last 8 or 9 paymts on the car. Not a whole lot of those either, but quite a number more than CC JDB cases.

 

I know my response could have been better, but given the crappy documentation they had and the case law and statutes I supported the arguments with, it was rules of evidence and hearsay "lack of exceptions" 101. No way they could prove standing............and with no standing ALL the other evidence was a moot point. NO STANDING nothing else needs be determined (there is some case law on standing in OK,not specifically on CC, but standing is standing.)........... without standing a picture showing you using the card wouldn't matter. I pounded on standing, heresay, business records, lack of proof of assignment for standing, because that beats account stated or anything else. That's why I'm going to appeal, if the case and my response is ACTUALLY READ and law applied, the outcome would have been much less severe. Not to say that at Trial they could or could not win, but for MSJ it should have worked as defendant only has to really find ONE thing where evidence and opinions of law could be interpreted differently to preclude SJ. I didn't even get to argue a OK Supreme court case I had found for oral that stated flat out that "trial by affidavit is not to be substituted for jury trial.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Harry.......................no where at no time did I ever admit. He didn't even look at my DV Exhibits (sent to them last year, and didn't admit in any admissions, or interogs ) denying the account in its entirety.

But wait a minute.  Not admitting to the debt is not the same thing as denying it under oath.  So to be clear, you took the stand under oath and said (or filed an affidavit that said) "I never opened or used this account"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait a minute.  Not admitting to the debt is not the same thing as denying it under oath.  So to be clear, you took the stand under oath and said (or filed an affidavit that said) "I never opened or used this account"?

No Harry............I said, maybe you misunderstood, that I was unsure one way or the other if it was my account as I didn't remember it..............therefore deny. Now in our adversarial court system it is up to them to Prove IT. They haven't ............under law and statute.

 

That's what most seem to miss. Our system is designed to be "Adversarial". This calls for one to deny and one to prove.

 

Then maybe somewhere in the middle a type of "Justice" can be achieved. If one just caves to what anyone else just claims, this is impossible and the wolves will run the chicken house.

 

If people don't understand that, then I can understand fully how these bottom feeders have such success, even with the wrong person on the account or other various errors. If it's your account or think it might be, maybe, possibly, then don't avail yourself of the system as it is designed. Just bend over.............................

 

Sorry, I don't take to bending well.

 

All I can say if that's a person's attitude and misunderstanding of the court room then there is no need to even be on a board or forum such as this.

 

We weren't sworn in, there was no "witness". As a pro se, it is hard to be a witness and argue a case. If they had tried that, just take the fifth and let the written record stand.

 

If the fool who has himself for a client, allows that client to incriminate themselves...............then the fool and his client both get what they deserve.

 

“Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

 

There were several issue's of material fact. Credit card statements without legal foundation (the several issues) alone and by themselves does NOT a summary judgment make, in a trial maybe, possibly the other items could be turned into evidence..................JUST NOT AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Doing a SJ on card statements alone robs the defendant of "DUE PROCESS" and jury trail.................the very bedrock of the American Legal system.

 

I look for them to tie our legal system to the PATRIOT ACT before many years elapses....................until then I'll stick with Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklins version thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@saytar

 

Where is the affidavit in support of summary judgment?

The only affidavit in support is the plaintiff's sworn statement at the bottom of the MSJ filed with the court. We don't normally do a separate affidavit in support, unless it's a witness or such adding their sworn statement to the record or deposition.

Some motions require this, some don't.

 

I'll post all the docs as I get them redacted..............I'm going to setup a separate directory just for this and post the link to it. It will have all the docs as I get them added.

 

Here is the Link. As I get them redacted and scanned I will add them here. There are several already in there. If you find any NOT redacted properly let me ASAP and I'll jump over and redact again. As they are now Public Record I will post all....as I get them done.

 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had trouble opening and viewing your docs. You might try uploading them here. In the post box you will see a more reply option. Go to it. I also saw that you had GE Money ban it looked like. Expect them to maybe sell your account to Santander in the future for collections. 

 

I agree on those truck stops down South. I used to own a trucking company and run aviation companies. Spent a lot of time in those Southern truck stops. Plus living in TN, SC, AR, MS and AL just for a few of the many states I lived in lol........now, back on track. Keep up the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the strongest issue for appeal would be the summary denial of your MTC arbitration.  The federal arb act, the state acts that mirror it, and the US Supreme Court in ATT Mobility v. Concepcion all strongly support arb instead of court when there is an arb argreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had trouble opening and viewing your docs. You might try uploading them here. In the post box you will see a more reply option. Go to it. I also saw that you had GE Money ban it looked like. Expect them to maybe sell your account to Santander in the future for collections. 

 

Might be too big of files, I'll try its a cloud storage so internet connection my be bad.....the Feds regulating now, will only get worse LOL  :conspiracy: ....but his MSJ was 16 pages....my response ran 35, plus all the others. I'm guessing total pages of all documents and motions around  125-135 pages........not counting statements....27 alleged months at 8 pages each........................ xholysheepx

 

Plaintiff figured right...........if ya can't dazzle them with brilliance...........baffle them with ********** x:-)

 

I agree on those truck stops down South. I used to own a trucking company and run aviation companies. Spent a lot of time in those Southern truck stops. Plus living in TN, SC, AR, MS and AL just for a few of the many states I lived in lol........now, back on track. Keep up the fight.

 

LOL Always tell everybody if I wasn't in OK I'd retire to LA for some peace and quiet and good food and folks...................Then I get the deer in the headlight look and "I wouldn't live in LA if...blah, blah!!"

 

I grin and say....(Owned my own truck a few years, I stayed south when possible).But I love Lower Alabama! Far enough inland so hurricanes mitigated, pretty country, nice folks......AND only about 3 hrs to the Sunny Gulf!!

 

If they sell it to Santander....I hope they do. Then I will have 2 causes of action. 1) Personal Damage Suit against CACH & the Attorney 2) FDCPA case??. I know there is some Fed law (read it somewhere, I'm sure) about they are prohibited from reselling especially a settled account.....................Fraud upon me and the purchaser comes to mind first, maybe Santander would love to take a piece of that pie. Is not or hasn't it been a part of the GE family?

 

For that I'll get an attorney..............as I'm sure the Well could run deep on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, my time in OK was not good either. When I lived in LA (lower AL) I was near Dothan and was just a couple of hours to the beach. Used to take my RV down there and camp on the beach.

 

GE sold me off to Santander, that's why I mentioned it. They are loooooong past SOL.....LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the strongest issue for appeal would be the summary denial of your MTC arbitration.  The federal arb act, the state acts that mirror it, and the US Supreme Court in ATT Mobility v. Concepcion all strongly support arb instead of court when there is an arb argreement.

That has crossed my mind.....since it was a jurisdictional question...even Judge admitted that. I think that's why he denied it........he wanted to rule on the MSJ.....good lapdog, come here spot.

 

Since the hearing covered both items I'm sure it could be included in an Appeal since the items were conjoined and it would have precluded SJ, which is where I think an Appeals court would go before deciding a MSJ appeal. Question is would it be better to Get the MSJ reversed or remanded (they would have to refile) and then hit with arb first.

 

Or appeal arb and just get kick it back to arb forum................which wouldn't be all bad either...........

 

I am going to add it to appeal.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, my time in OK was not good either. When I lived in LA (lower AL) I was near Dothan and was just a couple of hours to the beach. Used to take my RV down there and camp on the beach.

 

GE sold me off to Santander, that's why I mentioned it. They are loooooong past SOL.....LOL.

Dothan, AL home of SE Alabama State..................some of the cutes t co-eds south of the Mason-Dixon...........ahhhhhhhhhhhhh yes the days. ::Chasey::

 

SOL on this one Runs out by June this year for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.