Theorist

Debt Collection Law Firm Stealth Strategy

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

During a pretrial i witness the judge walk in the court room take off his robe and sat next to my mom at a table across from the banks attorney.

Kooky stuff happens some time. For any of a million reasons, that judge could have had a problem with that particular plaintiff on that particular day.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 11:18 AM, Clydesmom said:

You used TWENTY TWO paragraphs to ask what could have been done with that one sentence!  You may not like my answer but try that with a Judge and watch how fast he finds for the Plaintiff.  At best you will be lucky if he/she responds with "son, what the HELL are you talking about?"

Your time and the detail invested in your responses is, again, enormously appreciated. Understand that this isn't about whether I "like" you or your answers. 

You can avoid going-off on such tangents and improve the quality and persuasiveness of your posts by not veering into opinions on my attributes as an individual, your imagination of my ability to communicate intelligently in a courtroom, or the number of paragraphs you think correct for eliciting a response from an intelligent forum participant.

That I am out of my depth in the legal realm is why I am doing research and asking questions in a forum where there's no penalty for sounding silly. That you are out of your depth to make comments about me is why it's easy to talk down to you as the actual silly one.

What I know from my research is that plenty of consumers have questions like mine, and that clear and convincing answers are difficult to find. You are providing a lot of very helpful insights. Those insights aren't quite compelling enough however to give me confidence that they represent what could be called the last word necessarily.

The elements of your answers which, however you excuse it, amount to plain rudeness and nothing more almost make your posts easier to imagine as if made by a debt collection law firm responding to a silly theory that's dangerously close to being correct. No, I don't literally believe that, but, I am too new to this stuff to know the difference, and that's the only point that matters. If my being a newbie means you get to disrespect me or demand that I accept weak logic with gratitude because you're "helping" me, under threat of more insults, then safer would indeed be to assume I'm being bulldozed.

So, be nice. Can you do that?

Just rely on the reasonableness of your statements and your confidence in your facts rather than on your ability to cow others and to insult.

What would anyhow be the point in running a forum on an ongoing basis without new territory to constantly explore, through "dumb" questions, discussion of silly theories, or new ways of explaining old ideas for better comprehension by those of us who don't have the big picture? Innovations in stupidity should be welcomed, I do say, and I'm proud to call myself a pioneer. A question that has never been asked in a certain way ought to be always a good one.

I like this forum, so, I'd like to see this thread I've created here become the internet's most exhaustive and authoritative one in regard to the cooked-up fantasy notion of debt collection law firms who falsely portray themselves on small claims court complaints as representing famous original creditors as if plaintiffs, with tacit approval of those original creditors, when in truth the plaintiff is the collection firm itself. Because, I am not the only one asking about this.

Perhaps all experts who know how things really work agree that this scenario is dumb and impossible, but, that's not the point.

If someone somewhere knows something about this that you don't know, Clydesmom, then I want them to find this thread and to contribute their insights. That is why I posted my question with several paragraphs of background detail, and with no apologies for length.

Is that okay for you?

The reason why I now am writing another long and thorough post in addition is because I do not want other potential contributors to be dissuaded because of your chest puffing, mistaking arrogance for proof of substance. 

That you have read this far shows that even on matters of paragraphs quantity you make assertions you cannot support. You don't have the experience, you don't have the qualifications, you don't have data, and your logic is thin or non-existent. I on the other hand have a whole bookcase of data on relationships between text passage length and persuasiveness impact. So suck it.

How about if you therefore stick to just legal facts while I decide how to compose my own posts? 

Can you live in a world like that?

You might be absolutely correct on the fundamental issue. I don't much doubt that you are. I'd however like to attract further perspectives.

What I won't be doing is explaining myself to you any further in regard to opinions that seek only to denigrate.
 
Thank you, Clydesmom, for contributing your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Robby8900 said:

I don't know a case law to answer your question. However, my mom did this during discovery when she was sued by Merrick Bank Corp. During a pretrial i witness the judge walk in the court room take off his robe and sat next to my mom at a table across from the banks attorney. The bank spent $135.00 to file the suit, over $1,100.00 debt. When mom filed production of documents demanding the charter, and account General Ledger, in accordance with GAAP, the attorney for the bank immediately filed for continuance to get those docs, and stated it wasn't for purposes of delay. But, within a week the attorney filed for SJ, and the court granted it. Two weeks after that the attorney sent mom a letter stating the account of $1,100.00 which they sued for was paid in full and account closed. You tell me why that happened mom didn't pay it. 

And we just saw a case where a judge, after denying a MTC to a defendant, issues a judgement for 8 cents on the dollar of what the plaintiff was suing for because the judge felt the extra charges and interest were not warranted. Small claims court is very informal and judges do weird things there. It does not in any way set precedent in any court.

Now, as for the plaintiffs, the reason they do not fight these rulings is because it is not time effective. Only about 2% of the defendants actually fight their cases so the plaintiffs would rather deal with the other 98% that they get defaults judgements on. If the numbers that fought were higher, I would bet that quite a few of these actions would be appealed and would go down in flames in higher courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, WhoCares1000 said:

And we just saw a case where a judge, after denying a MTC to a defendant, issues a judgement for 8 cents on the dollar of what the plaintiff was suing for because the judge felt the extra charges and interest were not warranted. Small claims court is very informal and judges do weird things there. It does not in any way set precedent in any court.

Now, as for the plaintiffs, the reason they do not fight these rulings is because it is not time effective. Only about 2% of the defendants actually fight their cases so the plaintiffs would rather deal with the other 98% that they get defaults judgements on. If the numbers that fought were higher, I would bet that quite a few of these actions would be appealed and would go down in flames in higher courts.

Moms case was in municipal court, and she filed a counterclaim seeking treble damages. 9 months of doc filings back and forth between mom and bank attorney. Mom was setting up the case to win on appeal. Bank attorney filed 4 continuances over 9 months @ $30.00 each on top of the suit filing of $135.00, over $1,100.00 debt which in the end was mysteriously paid in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, Municipal court is small claims court in the State of Ohio. Anything above $15,000 would be heard in the Court of Common Pleas. Granted in Ohio, you can go straight to the appeals court rather than a Trial De Novo which is what happens in most state courts for small claims. No decision made in Municipal Court is binding on any other court.

You still have not convinced me however that your mother's arguments was the reason they folded. Even if it was Merrick Bank itself that sued you (and it looks like they keep their collections in house and sue on their own debts based on my research), they still might have decided that the cost of fighting your mother's requests (or compliance) was too high for the amount involved. That does not mean that in another case, they would not be more assertive. They also might have decided to close the case to avoid the risk of appeal where there might have been a chance that your mother would have won and set a precedent (anything is possible in court). We don't know that. The only they we know is that they walked away from the debt. The bank never said why.

In another state or even in another municipal court in Ohio, a defendant who tries this might get the "What have you been smoking son?" question from the judge and then an immediate summary judgement against them. Now in this case, they can appeal but again, they run the risk that a precedent will be created against them and will end this defense for once and for all (at least in the State of Ohio).

I am happy that your mother was able to force them to abandon the debt but one win in municipal court does not make a defense valid.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 11:16 PM, Theorist said:

In this arrangement, the debt collection law firms are making their money on volume while Capital One is avoiding the full costs associated with litigation. The courts are leveraged to produce a better result than can be had by involving regular collection agencies, yet Capital One isn't footing that bill. Defendants are better intimidated because they think Capital One is bringing the suit, while judges are maybe swayed by the clout of the big name. The advice to consumers offered by online forums is nullified because of the belief that the original creditor is the plaintiff, yet defendants never question whether Capital One made the choice to sue or will be the recipient of any payout for damages. The firm claiming to represent Capital One is however the only true plaintiff, with this detail being what makes it economically feasible for tiny accounts of a giant original creditor to be litigated.

Courts accept that the listed plaintiff is indeed the correct party.   A defendant who challenges it has to do more than offer observations.  

Have you checked your credit report as I previously suggested?

 

On 6/16/2019 at 11:16 PM, Theorist said:

There also are examples online of cases involving Capital One brought by other firms who list themselves as assignees, namely, PRA. Therefore, it can be said that Capital One does not always itself choose to litigate.

We don’t know the formula (or whatever it would be called) that banks use for selling or retaining accounts.  Perhaps it’s based upon percentages.   They sell a certain percentage and keep the rest.  It could also be based upon individual states such as those that allow wage garnishment.

 

On 6/16/2019 at 11:16 PM, Theorist said:

The problem I have with the affidavit that was attached to my complaint is that I can't believe the person who signed it is so terrible at her job that she hasn't been offered a promotion for ten years. Her name is on affidavits that can be found online from about that long ago. She's presumably been signing affidavits all day long, every day, for years and years, for people like me all across the nation. How do I properly say, "Your honor, no freaking way"?

I don't think a firm that has Samuel Jackson as a spokesperson would be so sloppy about affidavits.

 There also are examples online of cases involving Capital One brought by other firms who list themselves as assignees, namely, PRA. Therefore, it can be said that Capital One does not always itself choose to litigate.

So, I don't think anyone at Capital One actually created the affidavit I got, making me question whether Capital One is really the plaintiff, and because other cases similar to mine are more specific about Capital One not being the true plaintiff, it makes me think the debt collection law firm in the case of my lawsuit just happens to be a shady and sloppy one.

Judges don’t care about the opinions of defendants.   They want proof in the form of law, court precedent, or physical evidence.  

It doesn’t matter to a judge if an affiant has been signing affidavits for 10 years.  That’s not evidence of anything other than the fact that she’s been signing affidavits for 10 years.  I’m not sure what you mean by “sloppy.”

You may not believe that an employee of Cap1 created the affidavit, but you’re going to have to do more than suggest that sloppiness and 10 years of signing affidavits is evidence that Cap1 doesn’t own the account.  

In regard to shady law firms, I’m not claiming that what you’re suggesting has never or would not ever occur, but it would not be common.  The reason is because attorneys really don’t need to lie about the identity of a plaintiff due to the fact that the vast majority of defendants do not defend and default judgments are awarded to plaintiffs.  It doesn’t matter if the plaintiff is an original creditor or a debt buyer.  Most defendants believe just don’t fight back.  

In addition, any attorney who cares about his license to practice law is not going to risk losing his license along with a hefty fine.  

Again, please check your credit report.

All the being said, we understand that most posters who come to this site have never been sued before and don’t know where to start.  I was certainly scared to death the first time I was sued.  

You’ve already taken a good first step by doing some research.  However, be careful.   You need to research the research.  Some information you read may sound good, but it may not be supported by law or court rulings.  A lot of people will simply offer their opinions, but fail to realize the importance of supporting those opinions with law or precedent.

On this site, most of us research and offer case law, court rules, and/or statutes to support what we claim.  Unlike some information you find on th3 Internet, we don’t expect readers to “take our word for it” because we understand that judges don’t care about our opinions and  unsupported information.   

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

Who you calling a Sovereign Citizen?

Whoever is quoting elements of 200 year old case law.

 

Share this post


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

Whoever is quoting elements of 200 year old case law.

 

I, quoted that case. I, assure you that i am no sovereign citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BV80 said:

Courts accept that the listed plaintiff is indeed the correct party.   A defendant who challenges it has to do more than offer observations.  

Have you checked your credit report as I previously suggested?

Thank you again, BV80, for all of the insights you've provided. Your posts are what attracted me to this forum.

I will respond with an answer to your question shortly.

To simplify though, my question really continues to be just this: How through discovery might I obtain indisputable proof from the plaintiff named on a complaint that said plaintiff agrees that it is the plaintiff, particularly if attached affidavits smell of fakery?

That the scenario is unlikely I accept now as a given.

Creative ideas welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 4:47 PM, Theorist said:

Thank you again, BV80, for all of the insights you've provided. Your posts are what attracted me to this forum.

I will respond with an answer to your question shortly.

To simplify though, my question really continues to be just this: How through discovery might I obtain indisputable proof from the plaintiff named on a complaint that said plaintiff agrees that it is the plaintiff, particularly if attached affidavits smell of fakery?

That the scenario is unlikely I accept now as a given.

Creative ideas welcome.

There’s a possibility that the plaintiff will file a motion for summary judgment.  You will have to give the court a valid reason (issue of material fact) to deny the motion.  You won’t be able to claim that it hasn’t been proven that Cap1 is the real plaintiff.  Like I Statute before, the court will need more than “shady law firm” and “shoddy affidavit.”

If summary judgment is denied and there’s a trial, you could subpoena the affiant.

However, if you want to question the affiant before a summary judgment motion is filed or before a summary judgment hearing, check your rules on deposing witnesses.  

Can you show us the affidavit with your personal information redacted?  What is the name of the law firm?  

I’ll ask again:  Have you checked your credit report to see if Cap1 is showing the account as “sold” or “transferred” with a -0- balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've figured-out what's missing, i.e., why I smell a rat.

I guess I'm either Erin Brockovich or I'm an idiot---one of those two. Probably others will let me know.

To me, it always needs to come back to the business model. That's why I'm insisting on the existence of a needle in this haystack that others say cannot be. 

Galileo knew things didn't add-up, so he looked deeper and found the truth. Galileo texted me that shifting focus to credit report notations at this time would be premature, though I do intend to provide those too, and I'm grateful that you care enough about my situation to be asking for details of any kind.

Burn at the stake though I may for heresy, I do hereby declare that everybody online has it wrong about Capital One. 

Capital One is not hauling nice Mrs. Brimford who works down at the library into a courtroom over her unpaid $500 card balance, nor probably suing anyone for their balances of a grand or two.

To unsophisticated consumers like me, it's accepted as common sense that big fish won't waste time and money litigating over such small potatoes. Therefore, without saying that such can excuse non-payment, it's a shock to people like me to be served for the first time in their lives with a court summons, and another shock to then go onto the internet and find that those in-the-know consider defending against a large and famous original creditor to be particularly difficult.

When you stitch together all of the advice being offered online, the picture one gets, of Mrs. Brimford and Capital One having it out with each-other, is as silly and unrealistic as imagining that Mike Tyson would just as easily fight her for it in the ring at Caesar's Palace.

Okay, maybe he would do that---I don't know.

Emotionally, it's a big kick in the stomach. And, it isn't true. Everyone perpetuating this image is screwing with perceptions to the detriment of consumers, however good the intentions, if my hunch is correct.

Without fantastical innovations in lawyering technology allowing Capital One to bend laws of time and space, there is no reason to believe they can be more litigious than most other banks can be, because the conventional wisdom which says that's economically unworkable is the reality, and with those in-the-know often apparently skipping past this common sense starting point when they comment.

My research, which I conducted five minutes ago, reveals that when shown the paperwork I was served, 100% of respondents incorrectly state as their belief that the plaintiff in the suit being brought against me is Capital One, even though I now at last realize that's not what it really says. 

Debt collection lawsuits might be different from other kinds of suits, in that the party actually bringing the suit has reasons for monkeying with how the plaintiff is indicated in the paperwork. Normally there would be no reason for being anything other than perfectly clear on that matter, such that even most lawyers might not grasp the significance of what I'm suggesting here.

My summons, in the box marked "plaintiff", puts "Capital One Bank, N.A." on the top line. A few lines lower is a "c/o" followed by the debt collection law firm name.

Any reasonably intelligent person possessing only a commoner's understanding of how lawsuits work, being served a summons for the first time, will think that "c/o" means "care of" in the sense that all communication is to be made with the firm listed after it, being the attorney representative of Capital One, the logically-presumed plaintiff.

Nope.

The attorney representing the plaintiff is the firm indicated not in the box marked "plaintiff", but in the box marked "plaintiff's attorney". If that same firm is indicated also in the plaintiff box, regardless of whatever other company name is listed there too, what's being indicated is that the plaintiff and the attorney are the same firm.

The reason this truth can be entirely missed by defendants, as well as even attorneys, or small claims court judges, or court clerks, or government compilers of arcane statistics, or legal scholar generators of pie charts, leading to erroneous data everywhere depicting Capital One as ridiculously litigious, is that not only aren't these kinds of people sufficiently questioning how a business could even do that and be profitable, they also might not be accustomed to thinking about "chain of title" when reading the paperwork in front of them.

If you as a defendant when you receive your first-ever summons don't already know what "chain of title" is about or how it's indicated, and if the indication in your case is done by using "c/o", your chances as an intelligent human being of understanding that Capital One is not your plaintiff at all are surely close to none.

Supposedly for the purpose of not confusing the least sophisticated consumer, a practice which has developed is that of indicating as plaintiff not only the name of whatever local unknown collection firm is actually bringing the suit, but also the name of the original creditor, so that the defendant will better understand how that alleged debt came about.

The way that a reputable collection firm in my opinion would do that is by using a word such as "assignee", so that a layman reading a summons or complaint would understand easily that debt originated with Capital One has been assigned to the collection firm, and that the collection firm is the plaintiff.

By using "c/o" instead of "assignee", a collection firm, if taken to task about it, can say that they're just being "helpful" by showing the clear "chain of title" where "plaintiff" is indicated, even though what they're really doing is fooling pretty much anyone who looks at that paperwork, making them think it's going to be a fight with a Mike Tyson kind of opponent.

When you then go online for advice, you're told that it's going to be a KO for the other side.

I don't know how many different ways are maybe being used in paperwork to obfuscate to defendants and even to small claims court judges who the real plaintiff is. I also don't know how often Capital One really is the true plaintiff, nor am I claiming that never happens. However, I think safest would be to assume that any time any consumer has ever posted to a forum like this one saying he or she is being sued by Capital One, that consumer was mistaken, unless clear evidence to the contrary was also supplied.

So, against pretty much all advice found around the web, I intend to proceed with my case as if it is being brought by a collection agency, even though Capital One is listed at the top in the plaintiff box.

I don't know if I can do something in addition, such as add a counterclaim, on the basis that the least sophisticated consumer would be deceived by the trickery of the wording of the paperwork into thinking the plaintiff is Capital One even though it isn't, with that constituting some kind of violation. At minimum I would like to somehow indicate to the court, and to my real opponents, that I know that Capital One is not a plaintiff in any lawsuit against me.

Not sure how to do that, or if I can, or if it makes a difference.

I kinda sorta managed, after enormous effort, to get a Capital One representative to admit that it's unlikely Capital One is involved in any capacity.

Now then, let me say that everything in this post is of course just a hypothesis. Tomorrow I might realize that I've got it all wrong. Probably someone here will very quickly correct me.

Could I however be right, that, say, 99% of people who think they're being sued by Capital One are just misreading the paperwork?

In terms of the economics, even if my hypothesis is proven wrong, that still wouldn't mean things can add-up any better otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask this, when you get back from court today, please let us know where this strategy led you, even if it led to you getting your rear end handed back to you. It would be at least educational to us and would be helpful to others who might harbor the same thoughts.

As for whether they sold the debt in your case or not, @BV80 has asked you multiple times to state what your credit report says regarding the status of the Capital One debt and you have not yet answered. That would be the quick and dirty way for you to tell how well your theory will fly.

And yes, all banks can act differently since there are multiple paths they can follow. Capital One, American Express, and Discover all sue on their own debts for the most part. That is well known. Capital One has removed the arbitration clause whereas Synchrony Bank swears by such a clause regardless of what is going on. Each bank can and does make their own business decisions so it is not hard to imagine one bank doing debt collection in one manner while another bank does debt collection in another manner.

As for suits on low balances, again that is a business decision and most do it anyways because 98% of the time, they get a judgement so it is worth the effort. In fact, most banks and JDBs keep attorneys on retainers for a set fee for a set number of cases. That is why some plaintiffs are willing to walk away when a defendant puts up a reasonable fight.

So again, we have a reasonable belief on what will happen in court today BUT we could be wrong so we want you to report back. Realize that if you don't report back, the silence itself will be very telling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, it is frustrating to read threads on legal advice forums where the person asking the question or stating his or her problem never comes back to report the final outcome. And, nearly all threads are like that.

I don't have a court appearance today, though I am running out of time to file my answer. I am juggling multiple life realities currently of course, and there might be some delays in my responses as things unfold, but, I do hope to follow through on everything here out of gratitude for all of the feedback.

It's not clear to me how anyone knows for sure that Capital One, American Express, and Discover are actually so litigious, given that what I'm explaining here is a theory about debt collection law firms obfuscating who the real plaintiff is en masse. My theory could be totally wrong, but the contradicting logic continues to be circular, in the sense of, "We know that Capital One is litigious because everyone knows that Capital One is litigious". I think everyone is using erroneous data.

I can promise you that, based on my exceptional yet failed attempts at getting an answer, nobody except for an apparently very special few at Capital One know definitively whether or not Capital One is suing me at all, and those insiders are protected from outside contact better than prisoners at Guantanamo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Theorist  you are embarking on a fool's errand.  

Unless you are dealing with a JDB, the chances you will win such a challenge are very slim at best.  You do not appear to be dealing with a JDB.  

It is true, sometimes the oddball strategies work.  I beat Cap 1 partly with an oddball strategy.  My state has a law that when an OC is suing (I was never sued by a JDB), IF THE DEFENDANT DEMANDS AN ACCOUNTING, the accounting must go back to zero balance, and the affidavit must be signed by someone with a first-hand knowledge of the account.  The affidavit was signed by a "litigation support specialist".  The judge didn't believe that such a person had a first-hand knowledge of the account, and thus threw out the affidavit, and the accounting.  Boom.  

 

Notice this strategy won't work about 99% of the time.  In my case, I was in a state in which this accounting was mandatory upon demand, and I had the most consumer-friendly judge in the entire state.  

The lesson:  occasionally an oddball strategy will work.  It's great when it does work.  But don't count on it.  

 

You can claim it is not really Cap 1 suing you.  It won't work about 99.9% of the time, and some of the time the judge will just get annoyed, which may or may not make things worse for you.  You are in the courtroom alone.  Nobody here will be with you.  You make your own decisions.  If it works, great.  If not, well, we warned you it probably won't work.  

 

You could also attack the standing of the person who signed the affidavit.  Yes, it worked in my case in a different state with consumer-friendly laws and with the most consumer-friendly judge in the entire state.  I can't promise it would work with a different judge in a different state.  Anything can happen.  That is sort of a Hail Mary pass, but occasionally the Hail Mary pass works.  In my particular county -- one of the most consumer friendly county courts in the nation -- it was a decent bet.  That's sort of like saying the Hail Mary pass is more likely to work if thrown by Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers.  It could still work thrown by a backup QB on a bad team, but less likely.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Theorist said:

So, against pretty much all advice found around the web, I intend to proceed with my case as if it is being brought by a collection agency, even though Capital One is listed at the top in the plaintiff box.

You are heading straight to summary judgment.  The defenses for a JDB are very very different from an OC.  The court will see right through it.

14 hours ago, Theorist said:

I don't know if I can do something in addition, such as add a counterclaim, on the basis that the least sophisticated consumer would be deceived by the trickery of the wording of the paperwork into thinking the plaintiff is Capital One even though it isn't, with that constituting some kind of violation.

Violation of what?  

14 hours ago, Theorist said:

At minimum I would like to somehow indicate to the court, and to my real opponents, that I know that Capital One is not a plaintiff in any lawsuit against me.

I am 1000% certain your answer will do that and that is NOT a good thing.

3 hours ago, Theorist said:

It's not clear to me how anyone knows for sure that Capital One, American Express, and Discover are actually so litigious, given that what I'm explaining here is a theory about debt collection law firms obfuscating who the real plaintiff is en masse.

We know based on the number of threads that openly state the consumer is being sued by "creditor".  The three top answers for OCs are Discover, AMEX and Capital One.  You can theorize all you want but you are completely wrong and are going to find out the hard way.

14 hours ago, Theorist said:

I kinda sorta managed, after enormous effort, to get a Capital One representative to admit that it's unlikely Capital One is involved in any capacity.

First any information you got from Ravindra in an overseas call center operation is irrelevant. He has no more knowledge of what is going on with that lawsuit than Fred the plumber is Missouri.  The CSR is reading from a script and nothing more.  Once that account was sent to the law firm ALL communication must go through them on any issue related to the account which would include settlement talks or who is suing.  Next ANYTHING he said is hearsay and inadmissible in court.

10 minutes ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

The lesson:  occasionally an oddball strategy will work.

  Your strategy was not oddball it was good fortune of consumer friendly state laws.  You took advantage of them.  This OP does not have that. MI is VERY creditor friendly and he is going to get hammered on this.  The entire discussion is a waste of time.  He isn't interested in true help.  I can't even tell what the goal really is with the length and bizarre ranting of his posts.  It is most likely why the 2-3 experts from MI have not jumped in on the thread.

14 hours ago, Theorist said:

Could I however be right, that, say, 99% of people who think they're being sued by Capital One are just misreading the paperwork?

NO.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Theorist

I understand what you mean, but you have to help us.

When we ask questions, it’s because we need some details.  Right now, you are fixated on one concern and won’t address anything else.

I’ve asked several times if you’v checked your credit report for the information I gave you, but you won’t respond.  The information on your credit report could be important.

Please provide the name of the law firm.   If you’re concerned that it would reveal information about the lawsuit, that chance is extremely low.  The law firm probably files many cases every day.  Yours is just one of many.

It would also help us to see the affidavit.  Law firms use standard, preprinted affidavits.  They simply change the relevant details to fit each lawsuit.  With your personal information redacted, the only information we would see would be the preprinted language.

In order for us to help you, you must help us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BV80, I hear you, and, again, I am going to follow-up. I promise.

I of course want all of the help I can get, but on a practical level this thread was meant by me to focus on only one potential attack angle out of many. In my 300 other open browser tabs is where I'm studying the more conventional approaches.

It's not that I'm not listening or that I'm trying to be difficult. It's that my intent has been that this thread should remain fringe. If the desire is to shift the discussion instead to, "Here's how we always do it.", well, my other browser windows have got that covered. A thread that pushes an oddball theory seems to me a better contribution of value to the internet, even if it ends-up wrong, as long as the debate makes that clear.

Since you're offering however help to me on a general level, which is fantastic, my status is that despite saying in my last post that I intend to attack this like a JDB suit, I didn't mean I'm intending to use unconventional tactics otherwise. That's because, as I indicated in that same post, I don't have any unconventional tactics to try. What I've got from this thread are mostly tangents, for which I'll take the blame, and opposition.

Lacking innovative and compelling ideas focused on the original question, what I currently expect is to use the most sound and conservative advice I can piece together from around the web that's tailored to JDB lawsuits, but with the twist that I'll be using them for a suit in which the named plaintiff is an original creditor, essentially playing chicken with them and trying to call a bluff. If they respond by producing better quality documentation and more aggressiveness than I'd expected, I guess we'll know then that I was wrong.

For my approach, I particularly like the pinned thread by user bmc100, "Those Being Sued in Michigan by a JDB, a Step-by-Step in Defending".

I'm however stuck in that I'm not yet sure how certain tactics or strategies he or others elsewhere provide translate into concrete sentences that go into concrete documents submitted at correct points in time with properly officious and lawyerly wording. Although I could ace a quiz about civil process and could tell you what each kind of document is for, advice on the web often seems to either consist of empty templates and bulletpoint overviews or else very casual discussions that cite caselaw and such. I don't know yet how to bring the textbook stuff together with real-world ideas for intelligent execution tailored to my own situation. So, I'll probably use something very cookie-cutter, but at risk of regretting missing-out on options later ("If only I had done X at point Y, then I'd have proven Z, and then..."). I'm new enough that trying to grasp all possible future chess moves first before I make any move at all has me very bogged down.

So, yeah, I could just post all of my info here and rely on the kindness and good graces of others, which is a wonderful option that I'm grateful to have here. I should do that. Indeed, I'm slightly paranoid that the opposition might be watching forums like this one, but I also realize that the volume of cases and the insignificance of the sum involved in my suit gives me cover. And, I'm still stuck on the idea that I'm eventually going to figure things out on my own and arrive at a nice blend of ideas, sometime in late 2020 probably, if only I could somehow address the nagging feeling behind the question I actually posted here.

The original question of this thread is that if I don't trust that the debt collection law firm attached to a suit actually represents the entity they're naming as plaintiff, how then during the legal process do I request indisputable documentation from the plaintiff that the plaintiff agrees it is the plaintiff?

The answers have mostly been, "You can't do that", and, "Lawyers never lie".

Well, okay then.

I didn't know the judicial system had prohibitions against common sense.

In such a reality however it must necessarily be concluded that no reliable data exists that Capital One, Discover, or American Express have litigated anyone, ever.

Why am I the only one who grasps the disconnect? 

Clydesmom for example says people aren't being misled into thinking their suit is with an original creditor since people create threads here saying they're being sued by an original creditor.

I can only throw up my hands.

It's not that I'm convinced that I know what's going on. I just thought this would be easier.

For sure, I don't know what the hell I'm doing, so, I'm seeking creative ideas here for a very particular angle of approach, because standard approaches are covered elsewhere. I am willing to be the guinea pig for my own ideas and to report back the outcome. All well-intended warnings against my foolishness have been actually quite appreciated.

What instead however might be happening is that certain veteran contributors who would be the best ones to formulate creative ideas because of their long experience are just too deeply invested in the sum total of all of their previous postings of advice to others through the years, so that for me to come along and ask that we think outside the box ends-up being like a personal affront. And I get it that everyone genuinely thinks they're being helpful, which then justifies becoming testy over stuff like my credit report, even though that's not the help I requested.

A credit report can never answer the question I actually asked, even if it seems like it can.

My question at a deeper level is about finding the missing variable that makes possible the otherwise ludicrous notion that large banks sue consumers over piddly amounts.

A hunt for a missing X factor variable cannot be found through shortcuts. 

I just didn't realize that probing a seemingly simple and fundamental and frankly fishy issue would bring as much pushback as this, or an insistence on shifting the focus.

Nobody has proven where anyone's data on the litigiousness of Capital One comes from, other than that it starts with paperwork filed for lawsuits, which is assembled by debt collection law firms. Nobody has explained a way in which a defendant can independently verify that the relationship portrayed by such a debt collection law firm with a supposed plaintiff is the truth. Nobody has explained compellingly how it makes business sense against the backdrop of market forces for certain large original creditors to litigate over small credit card debts.

So, I don't know that I'm correct, but I'm left unsatisfied. 

There's even this Katie Wheat person who says she has no qualifications and offers no data, yet deems in her comments at the bottom of this article that there are certain "dangerous" and "shameful" ways of thinking which mustn't be entertained! I just can't stop rolling my eyes.

It is more than just a little surprising to me that apparently no one thinks widespread deception by debt collection law firms via lawsuit paperwork could be actually the most plausible and mundane explanation for certain things that seemingly don't add up, and that it's not even worth talking about. It's dangerous! It's shameful!

I didn't know that questioning of evidence and logic could be so wrong.

Again, if despite certain credit report indications and various wordings on various documents, a defendant still isn't convinced that an attorney really represents the named plaintiff in a suit being brought, what other options could plausibly be invented creatively for obtaining confirmation directly from that supposed plaintiff?

No such issue in any case ever has been?

I've been searching but remain perplexed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought, bmc100's "Step-by-Step for JDBs" approach probably is all wrong for my situation. I was confused by all of my open browser tabs and strategy possibilities.

Simply put, I think the documentation sent with the complaint seems weak, and that if I challenge the suit they won't be able to easily produce better details, on my hunch that the original creditor is not in fact a party to the suit in spite of what they're portraying.

My instinct therefore is to want to point-out to the court the flaws in what they've provided, but I'm working on figuring-out the appropriate timing and format for doing that according to civil procedure, and how one phrases such assertions, if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Theorist

Anyone who makes claims that are blatantly incorrect when the correct information is available is most certainly shameful because it shows that person has done no research.  

If you roll your eyes at statutes, court citations supporting those statutes, and court citations supporting the claims made by the person, imagine what a judge will do to a party in a lawsuit who relies solely on his “theories”.  He will do more than roll his eyes.

As to “qualifications”, what are you looking for?  Except for a couple of attorneys on this site, the “qualifications” of the members on this are based upon personal experiences and research.  

You came here allegedly looking for help and information.  If you are relying are certain “qualifications”, you might be on the wrong site.  Additionally, if you’re expecting feedback that only agrees with your theories, you are consulting the wrong site.

Throughout this site, you will find case law, statutes, and/or court specific rules supporting claims made by members.  Most members who cannot locate such support will readily admit that their information is based upon opinion.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Theorist said:

I'm seeking creative ideas here for a very particular angle of approach

There is a huge difference between creative and asinine.  Guess which yours is?  If there was a "creative" option it would have already been suggested.  You don't want help with this lawsuit you want to be told what you want to hear and as @BV80 stated you came to the wrong site for that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

There is a huge difference between creative and asinine.  Guess which yours is?  If there was a "creative" option it would have already been suggested.  You don't want help with this lawsuit you want to be told what you want to hear and as @BV80 stated you came to the wrong site for that.

Agreed.  

There are attorneys who only defend consumers.  Those attorneys are not in the business to lose.  If those attorneys never raise certain claims as a defense or cause of action, chances are the claims are not valid.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BV80 said:

If those attorneys never raise certain claims as a defense or cause of action, chances are the claims are not valid.   

If there was EVER one single valid case of the Plaintiff not being the actual original creditor as named in a suit the consumer lawyers would have been ALL OVER this a long time ago.  I have never heard of anyone claiming this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me as an intelligent grown adult being bullied by precocious kindergarteners wouldn't be more ridiculous a situation than this one.

It's simple, people. If there is indeed no way for me to independently verify that the firm who filed the paperwork for the complaint against me represents the entity they are claiming to be plaintiff, particularly in a case involving debt collection, then that's an arrangement conducive to deceit, period. That's regardless of whether such deceit is in my case occurring, which currently is unknowable, nor whether it has occurred in the case of anyone, ever. 

Such simple and obvious logic is not negated by others' empty puffery, the apparent fragility of others' ego, nor even others' long experience. It's therefore a valid topic for exploration, however possibly fringe.

Now get over it.

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are in small claims, file a counter claim and try to settle for a mutual dismissal.  Otherwise settle or use your own ideas to get a judgement.  It's really that simple.  We have been around this board a VERY long time helping people the best we can.  If your idea was thought to have any way of working, trust me, we would absolutely have explored it long ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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