I just blew $35.

I ran into this web site where the author claimed he had a special set of pleadings that he used to beat a Capone Lawsuit and two others as well. Obviously one of them was LVNV Funding. Of course, there were no case numbers and no telling what court was involved nor where it might have been.

There were 11 different documents in Microsoft word format. One was the now famous sworn statement of denial, another was a pretty standard debt validation letter and another was a combination interrogatories, demand for production of documents and demand for admissions. Sounds like a pretty good deal until you start examining the contents. For instance, his demand for admissions. Let's examine that one and see how an attorney might respond to the demands.

I'd guess that an attorney would just deny that and be done with it. First of all it assumes facts not in evidence before the court so how would the defendant know whether there was a purchase agreement or not?

Another dumb demand for admissions. I'd guess that many attorneys would simply object and state that the demand is irrelevant because it is unlikely to produce evidence admissible at trial or that the answer would provide information that would affect the outcome of the trial or maybe they would reply that it is privileged information. But they would not be likely to give any useful information.

Finally after two garbage demands we get a pretty good one.

I'd guess that most attorneys would deny that one and rely on the original credit card agreement

A multiple part question which usually isn't allowed. Furthermore it calls for a legal conclusion to which the attorney can and probably would object.

Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion.

Objection. Plaintiff has no legal obligation to provide defendant with such information.

Denied in part and admitted in part. Plaintiff admist that at the time the complaint was drafted the plaintiff's attorney was not in possession of that information but will provide all available documentation at the time of trial.

Objection. Question calls for a legal conclusion.

Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion

Denied. Plaintiff has a copy of the agreement between the parties and will produce same at the time of trial..

Objection. Demand calls for a legal conclusion

Objection. Question is a duplicate of defendant's so called fact #11 and Plaintiff has already responded to the question.

Objection. Question is irrelevant to the outcome of the trial and unlikely to produce evidence which would influence the outcome of the case.

Objection. Irrelevant. Plaintiff alleges and is prepared to prove that the defendant owes money to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff admits that the account was/is now and remains in default.

Objection. Response to the question is unlikely to produce any information relevant to the outcome of the trial.

The document rambles on for several more questions to which no attorney would ever provide any useful information to the defendant. In fact, as the questioning rambles on it becomes more and more inane. Despite all of the wild claims elucidated on the web site, when you have spent your $35 you might have gained somewhere in the neighborhood of about 35 cents worth of useful information.

Am I sorry that I spent the $35.00? Not really. I'm just extremely thankful that I know better than to use any of it. But it does bring up the point that people can spend money hoping to gain something of value, think that what they bought is useful and great information only to find out at trial that the plaintiff's attorney is laughing almost uncontrollably wondering how in the world anybody couuld believe all that nonsense.

 

Obviously the dude isn't the sharpest tool in the shed anyway. I do appreciate your most generous offer but the only thing might think I could use your help with at the present time is with the idea of authorized users for corporations. I think it would work if someone had a corporation that had a long history of great credit. Those kinds of corporations are just setting around begging to be bought up and used for whatever purpose but they cost from about $10,000 up and I do mean up. Steeply up. I don't have that kind of cash under my mattress and I don't know of anybody that does and would be willing to make that kind of investment even if they did have. So I really don't know of any way to try to get the idea working any time soon.
I didn't blow the $35.00 because I needed the potential information to help me get out of any problems. I really don't have any problems except that stupid $95 bill from AT&T and of course I could pay that anytime I choose to do so. No problem but I'm not about to give 95 cents to some debt collector let alone $95. I'll gladly goad them into a federal lawsuit first. Some other CA had it first and apparently just gave up when I demanded validation. This is the second one. I'll wait till the middle of next month and send them a VD letter, wait till 30 days has passed and send an estoppel letter. Fifteen days after they get the estoppel I'll send another followup letter just to let them know I haven't forgot about them and another 15 days and I'll send them the last letter in the series which is going to tell them to either get their business done or git off the pot. Of course, I expect that they will file all of the above in the round file. But the joke is that they either react properly to the git-off-the-pot letter or the next letter will be their summons to federal court served by a U.S. Marshall walking into their offices. They won't ignore that.

I'm confident they aren't about to serve me for any $95 but if they did they would have to file in small claims and since I couldn't use discovery in small claims and for other obvious reasons, I'm not even going to take a chance they might go there. Better to head them off at the pass first.

I do thankyou for your generous offer however.