Jump to content

Bank


stevelake
 Share

Recommended Posts

And is there any way I can bring up the whole target debacle with the data breach in 2013, as part of my case/defense?

 

Only if the account was fraudulently opened as a result of that breach.  If you had a Target card, used it, and defaulted then the breach has nothing to do with that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. But secondly, do I mention target anywhere in my discovery. Like when I'm asking to see the original signed document of when the account was opened.

 

DO NOT start asking for original signed contracts.  The courts are well aware that one does not exist in a credit card case and are not going to be looking for one.  I would NOT mention Target in anything as that could very easily be construed as admitting you opened the account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is, the whole Target debacle is about stolen card information and the use of it fraudulently so if you defense is that your card number was stolen and the amount is based on fraud, that would work. If your defense is that you never had the account, then the Target incident will not work at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is, the whole Target debacle is about stolen card information and the use of it fraudulently so if you defense is that your card number was stolen and the amount is based on fraud, that would work.

You will also have to swear under oath that the charges that were made were not made by you.  If that's a lie you'll be committing a felony.  How will they know you're lying? 

 

"Which charges do you now claim were fraudulently made?"

"Uhhhh..."

 

"Did you ever dispute with Target any of the charges you now claim were not made by you?"

"Uhhhhh..."

 

"Did you make payments toward the charges you now claim were not made by you?"

"Uhhhhh....."

 

If you're going to lie you're better off claiming the whole thing is a result of ID theft or something. (That's not a suggestion, by the way.)  The way you're doing it your going to shoot yourself in the foot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

File the general denial, send a demand for BOP, and or discovery and then fight the evidence.

See the discovery in ASTMEDIC'S thread, it's Calawyer approved and is what you ask for (usually done after the BOP demand is completed).

You can send the demand for BOP now, before you file the general denial.

There's plenty of good information in this forum on how to beat these cases in CA.

Avoid questions from members trying to get you to admit it's your debt or say something your oponent can use against you (if this line of questioning or comments should surface ).

Welcome BTW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your help. First, I'm not going to lie about anything (re: harry's response), I want to do this right, legally, and just protect myself as much as possibe.

 

2 things, Is there a link to "discovery in ASTMEDIC'S thread" I would like to see that.

 

Secondly just looked at my case summary and saw this bizarre entry...
 

09/03/2015 OSC HEARING IS SET FOR 06/23/18 AT 08:30A M., IN
DEPARTMENT F26 . ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING SIGNED AND
FILED BY ELLEN KALE, JUDGE TO SHOW WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF
SERVICE AND FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
CRC 3.740. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your help. First, I'm not going to lie about anything (re: harry's response), I want to do this right, legally, and just protect myself as much as possibe.

 

 

 

There are very few people here who will make those types of suggestions or accusations.

 

People win here all the time without lying. There's a lot valuable information here, especially in the Cali threads. There's also a lot of nonsense and noise as well, but it usually dies of fairly quick in CA threads and isn't too hard to spot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

09/03/2015 OSC HEARING IS SET FOR 06/23/18 AT 08:30A M., IN

DEPARTMENT F43 . ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING SIGNED AND

FILED BY ELLEN KALE, JUDGE TO SHOW WHY SANCTIONS

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF

SERVICE AND FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO

CRC 3.740. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED.

09/03/2015 CASE FILE FORWARDED TO RECORDS RE: FILING

08/05/2015 COLLECTIONS CASE COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740. RN

CHA487303056.

08/05/2015 SUMMONS ISSUED.

08/05/2015 SUMMONS FILED.

 

 

This means nothing to you so don't worry about.

 

Send the demand for BOP now, then file your gen denial later. Don't be late filing the gen denial, but no need to file it early either. Use time to your advantage.

 

EDIT: It looks like you may be running out of time to answer the complaint (depending when you were actually served). Don't be late filing the general denial it looks like it may be due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be sending discovery next. Do you know how long I have submit discovery, after I file general denial?

also, I started to read ASTMEDIC'S thread, not sure if it's the one mentioned, but it looks like it's with midland (which would not be "the original creditor", so it may have been a little easier to win and different circumstances) I don't know if TD bank has all the info from target. I'm not even sure create the discovery docs, how to discern between the two of them. Would I use "Plaintiff 's predecessor in interest..." anywhere, and who would that be. I'm wondering because I'm using some of terminology from a previous discovery that worked. I'm also wondering if in my discovey, when I'm requesting docs, do I only mention/address TD bank? or do I mention target, and/or do I mention the creditor representing td bank anywhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, On a separate note (to harry s.) I read the post again, and I just want to be clear why I asked about the target debacle. I mentioned it, not to use that as ID theft / card was stolen or something related... and yes that would be stupid and illegal. I would only bring it up to show sloppiness and mismanagement of records. and/or maybe that they compromised my info along the way. And thought that maybe that would help to get them to back off, because it really is something they did wrong,  Well, wishful thinking I guess, but if anyone has ideas about bringing some of those "mismanagement and/or compromising of records" issues into discovery or some other part of my case, I'm open.

Link to comment
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.

 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.