RelayerPA

To be served, or not to be served...

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, BV80 said:


You also have to realize that if the plaintiff presents credit card statements with your correct name and address, most judges are going to be pretty sure that, absent ID theft, you opened the account.  You’d have to come up with a good explanation as to how those statements show your name and address but were never delivered to your mailbox and you never realized there was a credit card account opened in your name. 

Then it comes down to challenging the plaintiff's right to sue me, along with challenging the accuracy of their claims. This goes for either an arbitration setting or even if the magistrate ignores the MTC and continues the case. One of the more common assertions in forums such as this is that JDB records can be sloppy due to how they are handled, forward-flow agreements, and all that, and may very well contain errors that bring their claims into question AND that it doesn't hurt to try and discredit such JDB claims. As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't mind spending time coming up with multiple strategies to fight this... even if I find I don't use many of those strategies in court. I become more informed when I research these kind of challenges. However, I'd rather be more, as opposed to be less, prepared for any turn of events in court.

I've learned so far in this thread that I can do my MTC Arbitration differently than I did before, and have more confidence that the MTC will be honored, or at least I have faith that I can successfully appeal a judgement that may be handed down if the magistrate chooses to set it aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To the best of my knowledge, this is a TRUE AND CORRECT COPY.

Thank you for the wording. That leaves just one other caveat I feel I need to address. In a previous case, I printed out the most recent copy of the OC's agreement. The Magistrate also decided to rule that since the effective date on the agreement was newer than the earliest statement date the plaintiff had a copy of, that that agreement doesn't apply. I argued that even the agreement says something along the lines that newer agreements supersede older copies of the agreement, unless I (as the card holder) responded in writing within 30 days of the new cardholder agreement that I do not wish to be bound by it. In other words, since I did not do so, then I expected to be bound by each new update of such an agreement if I don't respond in writing. Shouldn't the same go for the JDB when they receive an account through assignment, too?

Quote

I personally have no problem agreeing to because it has nothing to do with the JDB's assignment nor whether there was ever any debt owed or what that debt amount might be or if the JDB is the proper party to collect any alleged debt.

That takes moxy, but I understand your reasoning for doing so. After all, it's the Plaintiff's burden of proof, not the defendant's.

Quote

  And aside from that, if you look at all of the case law, once there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, the ONLY thing the court may rule on is the issue of arbitration.  The MTC stops all issues of the debt in court and shifts the argument to arbitration only.  Case law makes it clear that the Court has no real choice but to grant the MTC.

And if the magistrate fails to honor my rights, especially in light of my notarized affidavit, I have a very good chance to successfully appeal any other form of judgement made by the magistrate.

Thank you for the extra insight. I feel a bit more confident to success that I can get this moved to arbitration.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RelayerPA said:

And if the magistrate fails to honor my rights, especially in light of my notarized affidavit, I have a very good chance to successfully appeal any other form of judgement made by the magistrate.

The Magistrate Judge would be ruling against several Supreme Court rulings regrading arbitration.  As far as I know, your Magistrate Judge has not been appointed Super-Supreme Judge with the power to over-rule SCOTUS.  Therefore, his error should easily be overturned.  Although that isn't even what you would be doing.  The de novo appeal means nothing from Magistrate court is brought to the higher court and it all starts over new.  So you aren't even appealing the erroneous decision, you are just starting the case over because the rules allow for it and the reason is irrelevant.

54 minutes ago, RelayerPA said:

The Magistrate also decided to rule that since the effective date on the agreement was newer than the earliest statement date the plaintiff had a copy of, that that agreement doesn't apply

Find an agreement as close to your date of default as possible. That is the correct one. - Or ANY agreement that you swear to in an affidavit that the JDB can not counter-testify to is also the 'correct one', if you know what I'm saying.

 

55 minutes ago, RelayerPA said:

That takes moxy, but I understand your reasoning for doing so. After all, it's the Plaintiff's burden of proof, not the defendant's.

I don't even see it as moxy or a risk.  You submit an MTC and the entire case shifts to whether or not there is a valid agreement to arbitrate.  The debt and everything else becomes irrelevant in that moment.  So I don't see a problem admitting to the portion that I am a party to the valid arbitration agreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Then it comes down to challenging the plaintiff's right to sue me, along with challenging the accuracy of their claims. This goes for either an arbitration setting or even if the magistrate ignores the MTC and continues the case. One of the more common assertions in forums such as this is that JDB records can be sloppy due to how they are handled, forward-flow agreements, and all that, and may very well contain errors that bring their claims into question AND that it doesn't hurt to try and discredit such JDB claims. As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't mind spending time coming up with multiple strategies to fight this... even if I find I don't use many of those strategies in court. I become more informed when I research these kind of challenges. However, I'd rather be more, as opposed to be less, prepared for any turn of events in court.

I've learned so far in this thread that I can do my MTC Arbitration differently than I did before, and have more confidence that the MTC will be honored, or at least I have faith that I can successfully appeal a judgement that may be handed down if the magistrate chooses to set it aside.

If the magistrate refuses to grant your MTC, I would not offer up any other defense at that point. I would simply wait for the magistrate to rule and then unless the magistrate rules in your favor (highly unlikely), after the case is done, I would immediately go to the clerk and file an appeal with the higher court (even before the ink on the order has dried). If you wish to partake in any other defense, that is your business but realize if you do partake and win, the plaintiff might appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhoCares1000 said:

I would not offer up any other defense at that point.

Why not?  When you get to the point of no return you might as well throw everything at the wall and just see if something happens to stick.  There is no downside to a scorched earth tactic at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

Why not?  When you get to the point of no return you might as well throw everything at the wall and just see if something happens to stick.  There is no downside to a scorched earth tactic at that point.

Except that even if something does stick, the plaintiff might appeal too so you are back to square 1. Really depends on how much effort you want to put forth after the MTC is denied knowing that you are coming back to court.

Share this post


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

Except that even if something does stick, the plaintiff might appeal too so you are back to square 1. Really depends on how much effort you want to put forth after the MTC is denied knowing that you are coming back to court.

I understand your point, but an appeal on either side is de novo. If I would be denied arbitration, yet win the case on other points, an appeal by the plaintiff would still let me bring up arbitration at the higher court as if I filed the appeal myself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WhoCares1000 said:

Except that even if something does stick, the plaintiff might appeal too so you are back to square 1. Really depends on how much effort you want to put forth after the MTC is denied knowing that you are coming back to court.

Like OP said, it's a de novo appeal so it doesn't matter.  Also the trial takes place immediately, not at a later time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got the confidential information for the case from the Magistrate office. All it is is a reference to a few account numbers (FAN). It does not list which account number goes to which account OC mentioned in the complaint. There are several accounts listed on the original summons.

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.