My experiance with lawsuits.

I have no doubt that approach might work in some courts. On the other hand, I have to doubt that it will work in most courts. If it were that simple then just about all defendants would win almost every case and neither creditors nor pseudo creditors would ever collect any money by filing lawsuits. If that worked even 50 percent of the time the word would spread across the land via the internet in a matter of just a few days and collections lawyers all over the U.S. and Canada would be out of work in a matter of a couple of months. We all know that isn't going to happen.

Your experience covers 6 or 7 cases you say. My experience covers many hundreds of cases all over the U.S. and in all 50 states in over 10 years time both at the local and federal levels. The approach you suggest works much better in foreclosure cases than it does in debt collection cases because of the way that most mortgages have been handled over about that same period of time. Most foreclosure cases are brought by trustees of some investment pool and that fact is often stated right there in the complaint.
For instance, Bank of New York, Trustees of mortgage and servicing pool #SO And So, Plaintiffs. Or Duetsche Bank, Trustees of such and such. That immediately identifies them as having no financial interest in the case nor any actual investment in the property. It also immediately identifies them as 3rd party debt collectors yet it took until only a few short months ago for people to realize that fact and at least attempt to defend on that basis.

In credit card cases the true plaintiff having an actual investment in the outcome of the trial is far better obscured but the money for credit card lending is derived in almost the same way that mortgage lenders obtained the money to make untold trillions of dollars in loans to homeowners.

Most Banks do not lend their own money. They also do not sell their notes to the Federal Reserve or the United States Treasury as so many fools would have us believe. They do not lend out depositor's money either. The money that is lent out to credit card holders comes from investors world wide. The banks collect a few points in interest plus any and all other fees they can tack on.

The government didn't have enough money to bail out the mortgage banks when that bubble burst and they also do not have enough money to bail out the credit card banks. They don't have enough money to bail out the banks on commercial loans or vehicle loans either. In fact, the government don't have enough money to even meet their current expenses so must continually borrow money from foreign investors who buy government backed securities and foreign banks who are willing to invest in our economy. China is one of the biggest investors in America and our Government's debt instruments. So are just about all other nations big investors in the American economy and government.

So when a credit card bank needs money to loan out they get most of it from overseas. Then they have to pay interest on that money but at very low rates and they get to keep the rest of it plus all the late fees and whatever else they can tack on. All of that is much better hidden than it was in the case of mortgage lending.

As I said in an earlier post today, I'm looking at using that same defense in my own case if need be. Maybe I won't need it. Too soon to tell yet. I won't know until later this week and maybe not even that soon. But if I do use it I have some fairly good proof that a false plaintiff might be at work. Certainly enough to raise doubts but if I use it I won't be relying on that to get the job done as a total kill. There is also a statute that would work to augment that argument so once again it would only work if certain conditions exist. At least that's the way I see it. I wouldn't want to rely on that as my sole argument.

 

OK, I can understand the "who are you?" answer/defense, but I'm stumped on how the fact (assuming, for the moment that it is a fact) that the banks are borrowing the money they lend has anything to do with anything. Those are completely separate transactions. That A lent money to B and B lent money to C (and C to D and D to E, etc.) Doesn't mean that there's some obligation for B to pay A, C to pay B, D to C, and so on. In a suit, the issue on the able could be any one of those individual transactions.

Now, I suppose, where it get's tricky is when they bank sells the credit obligation (debt) to someone else and then acts as a servicer. E.g. E lends to F and then E sells the debt (in some form or another) to X (and Y and Z). Then I could see how you could allege that the bank (E in this example) doesn't have standing; that'd be an intresting case to make (and prove).

 

Your are right. It don't. Yet we have nuts who even try to claim that there is no money so therefore they don't have to pay. (LOL) They are quite right in claiming there is no money because there is no such thing as money. Congress has never defined what money is so there is no money. There isn't any cash either since Congress has never defined what cash is. But so what? On rare occasions I have taken purchases to the cash register and asked them if they accept I.O.U.s and of course the answer is no. My response is that if they don't take I.O.U.s then I have no way to pay. All the time, I'm holding the money right in my hand so they can plainly see it. Then I'll ask if they will accept those I.O.U.s. Of course they will so it follows they do accept I.O.U.s because federal reserve notes are I.O.U.s. Big deal but a sometimes fun argument. That didn't work too well for a man I know who tried it in a Pizza Hut a week or so ago. They had him thrown in jail even though he had the money laying right on the table. His problem was that he got angry and mouthy with the cop. That's what got him arrested and jailed. (LOL).

Right again.

I'd have to agree with you again. As I said I may just try to use that argument in the near future. But the argument really won't be whether or not the putative plaintiff has standing to sue but rather whether the putative plaintiff is the true party of first interest in the case and not a 3rd party debt collector. There is yet another statutory factor which determines whether or not the case under consideration can be brought in the present court or not. That's the kicker in this particular instance. But I don't want to have to go there if I can help it because there is yet another consideration that has to come first and whether or not that can be brought into play remains to be seen. I won't know about that until later this week. If that one kicks in then it won't make any difference who the plaintiff is. I don't want to get specific about some of this stuff because the case is ongoing and I don't know but what the attorney might be watching this forum and I don't want to tip my hand too much.

There are a great number of things that could happen in this case yet. The final solution is still several months away no matter what happens.