Mongosmash

Being sued by PRA in Dallas County, TX

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, debtzapper said:

No, you are welcomed here.  You just need to start your own thread.

Thanks DZ.  I know... I'm just bustin um. But I will say, the name calling doesn't help the cause.  And, to pull a positive out of it all, I decided on a new display name. :twothumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Muddy Waters said:

Thanks DZ.  I know... I'm just bustin um. But I will say, the name calling doesn't help the cause.  And, to pull a positive out of it all, I decided on a new display name. :twothumbsup:

I don't like the name calling, either.  Serves no purpose.    Everyone here shares a common goal of winning against JDBs.   Argue vociferously but don't make it personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, debtzapper said:

I don't like the name calling, either.  Serves no purpose.    Everyone here shares a common goal of winning against JDBs.   Argue vociferously but don't make it personal.

AMEN... Let's all just keep the Mojo Workin'! xguitarx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

 

First, you are demonstrating to us all that what you consider a "true fact" is really just your opinion. So this is problematic when trying to fight a court case that actually deals in real facts.  Second, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that all you are doing by lobbing insults at people is misdirecting away from things you don't want to respond to. I have posed several relevant and legitimate questions to you that you have just ignored and instead go down some asinine line of questioning about AZ vs. TX.

First it is both my opinion and a true fact.  The generally accepted definition of an internet troll is someone with a spoiled brat mentality who thrives on stirring up trouble and  provoking anger out of others.  You have demonstrated such true colors not only in this thread but also in a recent one concerning breturbo's case. 

Secondly you just perfectly described yourself as you were the one "lobbing an insult" ("Don't be a moron") and diverting from answering something that you did not want to answer for whatever reason by referring to something that took place in Arizona (stating that you sent discovery to Calvary which has nothing to do with Texas or my relevant and legitimate inquiry to you regarding JDB's consistently refusing to answer my discovery)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, texasrocker said:

First it is both my opinion and a true fact.  The generally accepted definition of an internet troll is someone with a spoiled brat mentality who thrives on stirring up trouble and  provoking anger out of others.  You have demonstrated such true colors not only in this thread but also in a recent one concerning breturbo's case. 

Secondly you just perfectly described yourself as you were the one "lobbing an insult" ("Don't be a moron") and diverting from answering something that you did not want to answer for whatever reason by referring to something that took place in Arizona (stating that you sent discovery to Calvary which has nothing to do with Texas or my relevant and legitimate inquiry to you regarding JDB's consistently refusing to answer my discovery)

 

 

That's enough.   Merely not caring for the opinion of another poster does not make that poster a troll.  Harry posed questions, comments, and issues that could very well come up in courts.   It's much better for a poster to face them here than be surprised in court.  

His reference to what Cavalry did in his case was merely meant to be an example of how the JDB could answer discovery requests.  It had nothing to do with the comment you made in response.

It's great that JDBs have refused to answer discovery requests that you sent, but it doesn't mean that it will be the same for every other poster.

It is improper to tell others not to post in those threads simply because they are not from your state.   Please refrain from doing so in the future.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, texasrocker said:

First it is both my opinion and a true fact.  The generally accepted definition of an internet troll is someone with a spoiled brat mentality who thrives on stirring up trouble and  provoking anger out of others.  You have demonstrated such true colors not only in this thread but also in a recent one concerning breturbo's case.

You keep confusing your opinion with fact.  I know it feels like a fact to you because it's going on inside your own head, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Asking you to back up your claims is not being a spoiled brat or a troll.  You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like to have your views and methods challenged (which kind of does sound like a spoiled brat, actually), but I said it before, if a defendant cannot come up with answers to questions being asked here, they have NO SHOT in a courtroom when the same questions come up from a JDB's attorney.  You can sit back and say "just do it my way because it works" as long as it actually works.  It hasn't worked in 3 very recent cases so you can't do that anymore.  If you're going to cling to your strategy as a working one, you need to present a contingency plan for when the judge doesn't interpret the laws the same way you do.

 

3 hours ago, texasrocker said:

Secondly you just perfectly described yourself as you were the one "lobbing an insult" ("Don't be a moron") and diverting from answering something that you did not want to answer for whatever reason by referring to something that took place in Arizona (stating that you sent discovery to Calvary which has nothing to do with Texas or my relevant and legitimate inquiry to you regarding JDB's consistently refusing to answer my discovery)

I sincerely apologize for calling you a moron.  That was out of line.  I should have kept my cool, even while you were insulting and taunting me.

I'm not sure how you expect me to "answer" your question about the example I gave.  You said JDBs "never" answer discovery requests when they pertain to how an witness could have personal knowledge of an individual's account or an OC's record keeping practices.  For the third time now, the point of my example was to show that they can admit that request with impunity because recent JDB affidavits (whether in AZ or TX or on the moon) do not claim the witness has personal knowledge of the account origin or OC's record keeping practices.  There's also nothing in Texas that requires a JDB witness to have personal knowledge of an individual's account origin or the record keeping practices of the OC. 

As far as why JDBs refuse to answer your discovery, I have no idea.  Perhaps what you ask is overly broad and burdensome.  Perhaps it's irrelevant.  Perhaps they know they will get a judgment regardless if they answer it or not.  I can tell you this though - PRA would not be committing perjury by admitting they don't have personal knowledge of the account origin or OC's record keeping practices because these claims weren't made in the affidavit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I sincerely apologize for calling you a moron. 
 

Apology accepted. 

In case you did not see the message directly above from the boss, she said "That's enough." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, texasrocker said:

Apology accepted. 

In case you did not see the message directly above from the boss, she said "That's enough." 

I'm quite sure she meant enough insulting and didn't mean for the meaningful discussion to end. 

But take it however makes you the most comfortable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I'm quite sure she meant enough insulting and didn't mean for the meaningful discussion to end. 

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mongosmash,

I just found this, and this may help you.  I did not see any redacted account list, but this may be of some help.

Jenkins v. CACH, LLC, No. 14-13-00750-CV, 2014 WL 4202518, at *6-7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 26, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that the "Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans" presented to the trial court failed to establish "the assignment of the account to CACH" and thus constituted "insufficient evidence upon which the trial court could have reasonably rendered a judgment in CACH’s favor").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, atom1971 said:

Mongosmash,

I just found this, and this may help you.  I did not see any redacted account list, but this may be of some help.

Jenkins v. CACH, LLC, No. 14-13-00750-CV, 2014 WL 4202518, at *6-7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 26, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that the "Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans" presented to the trial court failed to establish "the assignment of the account to CACH" and thus constituted "insufficient evidence upon which the trial court could have reasonably rendered a judgment in CACH’s favor").

The document PRA attached to their BRA is essentially what that case references, however this document is in no way marked as to indicate what it even is.  It appears to just be a formatted computer printout from Excel or some database program with cryptic codes and the same information they could have copied from the billing statements they attached.

This case law is perfect, thank you.  I will definitely be using that one if it comes to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mongosmash said:

 It appears to just be a formatted computer printout from Excel or some database program with cryptic codes and the same information they could have copied from the billing statements they attached.

Again - preponderance of evidence: Is it more likely that a 1.5 billion dollar, publicly-traded company relies on computerized records purchased from major creditors (resulting in a report generated from those records), or has a room full of kids in a basement hand-copying numbers from a CC receipt into a spreadsheet to screw you?

Common sense does not end and the courthouse steps - otherwise the entire system would collapse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Again - preponderance of evidence: Is it more likely that a 1.5 billion dollar, publicly-traded company relies on computerized records purchased from major creditors (resulting in a report generated from those records), or has a room full of kids in a basement hand-copying numbers from a CC receipt into a spreadsheet to screw you?

Common sense does not end and the courthouse steps - otherwise the entire system would collapse. 

I can leave that out of my argument.  My point was that the printout is not labeled and there is nothing linking it to the "Bill of Sale" or vice versa.  It is simply a document.  All the BRA can attest to is that is an original or copy of an original.  It can not lay foundation as to what it is.  The preponderance of evidence doesn't show that the printout is the Purchase Agreement or Notification Files referenced in the Bill of Sale.  Jackson v. CACH and Jenkins v. CACH back that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mongosmash said:

I can leave that out of my argument.

This is a phrase the debt collectors love to hear.

5 minutes ago, Mongosmash said:

 

 My point was that the printout is not labeled and there is nothing linking it to the "Bill of Sale" or vice versa.  It is simply a document.  All the BRA can attest to is that is an original or copy of an original.  It can not lay foundation as to what it is.  The preponderance of evidence doesn't show that the printout is the Purchase Agreement or Notification Files referenced in the Bill of Sale.  Jackson v. CACH and Jenkins v. CACH back that up.

It's a preponderance of ADMISSIBLE evidence. One word can make a big difference.

Read your rules of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, debtzapper said:

 Everyone here shares a common goal of winning against JDBs.  

If that's true then I think there's a big difference amongst people as to the meaning of "winning".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anon Amos said:

It's a preponderance of ADMISSIBLE evidence. One word can make a big difference.

That's an excellent point.  If it's not admitted into evidence, then there is no preponderance.

1 hour ago, Anon Amos said:

If that's true then I think there's a big difference amongst people as to the meaning of "winning".

What do you consider winning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mongosmash said:

That's an excellent point.  If it's not admitted into evidence, then there is no preponderance.

Exactly. You have to try to keep as much of their "evidence" out of court and force them to authenticate it and lay a foundation for everything they want to admit into evidence. And you want to force them to give you what they are going to use against you (in discovery) or be barred against admitting it. You want them to have to bring a live witness, even if you have to subpoena one. If you don't already know your rights then you have to learn them and be willing to assert them. You have a right to due process. If you are going to believe that an affidavit is obviously evidence then you will lose. Affidavits are more for pre trial and summary judgment, and if you have objections to the hearsay contained in the affidavit, we have courts that are for the people and a need for trial. The affidavit is not testimony, it cannot speak and is not evidence, nor can you cross examine it.

It should never be obvious that these bottom feeders own this debt or that it's even yours, or that the numbers are correct. Or that if you pay them it's over and done with because there could be other bottom feeders who bought the same debt and can sue you as well.

1 hour ago, Mongosmash said:

What do you consider winning?

In short; A dismissal, or an out right win if they go to trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to control the dynamics of the case and learn and find in the rules what you can use against them to get it done. You keep constant pressure on them and try to force them to dismiss the case. These cases are about economics for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anon Amos said:

It's a preponderance of ADMISSIBLE evidence. One word can make a big difference.

Amen. 

Excellent point there, sir!

Quote

You have to control the dynamics of the case and learn and find in the rules what you can use against them to get it done. You keep constant pressure on them and try to force them to dismiss the case. These cases are about economics for them.

Exactly.  I have always said to never allow them to have the upper hand.  

Besides economics they absolutely hate having to get up and actually work so anything you can conjure up that makes them have to put extra time into researching or writing a response to etc. has the same effect as being put on a chain gang.   Go out of your way to make them cringe every time they come across your name while fumbling through their stack of papers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, texasrocker said:

Besides economics they absolutely hate having to get up and actually work so anything you can conjure up that makes them have to put extra time into researching or writing a response to etc. has the same effect as being put on a chain gang.   Go out of your way to make them cringe every time they come across your name while fumbling through their stack of papers.  

I suspect it's the exact opposite. Who decides to become a lawyer, graduate from law school and pass the Bar in order to process default judgments all day? I did quite a bit of online "stalking" of my opponents during my time dealing with this stuff. Most of them seemed to really enjoy "lawyering," as one put it. While we did encounter one "rent-a-lawyer" at a court-ordered mediation, the rest were serious professionals. I had perhaps the best consumer debt lawyer in the state and never got the impression that the opposition was "cringing."

We'll see what happens to OP in court on Monday, although I doubt outcome will change any minds. If he wins, some of us will still advocate arbitration. If he loses it will be because of a crooked, hack judge, or because he didn't convince the court that PRA found his credit statements in the pocket of a suit one of their collectors bought at Goodwill.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

I suspect it's the exact opposite.

Of course you do

1 hour ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

because he didn't convince the court that PRA found his credit statements in the pocket of a suit one of their collectors bought at Goodwill.

 

That's not something he would have to convince the court of nor was it ever suggested as an argument.

Foundation & Authentication. Plaintiff has burden of proof.

I didn't realize the trial is Monday, I guess this is your Good Luck to OP post. So that part I will agree with and second. Good luck to you @Mongosmash I would try to read Texas Rocker threads and opinions as well as your rules of evidence particularly Hearsay, and the Business Records exception to Hearsay. Study about Foundation and Authentication.

Also, if a lawyer tells you he will dismiss and you can leave, don't leave. Make sure you sit in until your case is called and you hear him dismiss it (or you see it has been dismissed on the court docket).

Good Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trial is actually on Tuesday.  There should be a hearing immediately prior to the trial where I'm confident the judge will rule in favor of my Motion to Compel Discovery and believe the Plaintiff will ultimately fold if that's the case.  I definitely would like to keep this out of trial it at all possible but I'm preparing for a trial contingency on Tuesday as well.  

I've got a basic outline completed but need to put it into something legible I can follow during a trial and reread all the great advice on these forums and from @texasrocker.  I'm gonna try and get that posted here this weekend for some last minute input.  I'm finally getting my head around the hearsay exemptions and feel pretty confident in my ability to prove that the affidavit and attached records don't fall within the business records exemption.  Even if I can't do that, they have provided nothing to show assignment of the alleged debt and therefore can't show standing.

Question for everyone.  If this does go to trial, obviously, I need to have case law on hand to backup my arguments if needed.  Being as this is Justice Court though, when arguing my points to the judge should I readily bring the case law up or should I keep it my back pocket for the most part.  I don't want to rub the judge the wrong way with him thinking I'm trying to throw out "legalese" I don't know anything about.  Or is best to always offer up the case names and relevant points anyways.  What is ya'll experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One additional question.  The TRCP for Justice Courts 500(3)(e) states that "The other Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence do not apply except: (1) when the judge hearing the case determines that a particular rule must be followed to ensure that the proceedings are fair to all parties; or (2) when otherwise specifically provided by law or these rules."  That being said, do Justice Court judges typically allow TRE to be used or what is the best way to swing him in your favor?  Being that he permitted my discovery I'm inclined to believe TRE will be allowed but I don't know.

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.