Although the site still lacks two pages which will be put up in the next little while, the courtroom saga of Dewey Cheatum is unfolding at http://www.creditwrench.com/umax1.html http://www.creditwrench.com/umax2.html http://www.creditwrench.com/umax3.html http://www.creditwrench.com/umax4.html http://www.creditwrench.com/umax5.html Dewey Cheatum is a non de plume for a friend of mine who when into court and beat the pants off the collection agency and the creditor after judgement had been filed. The 5 pages tell the story and show how to do it and all the cites used in the case. Dewey Cheatum used our advice and went into court pro se and beat the daylights out of them. You can do the same. There will be a total of 5 different pro se cases posted on the website in the next few days as time permits. Each is the case of people I know here in Oklahoma City. In fact, the daughter of the lady in the case called Dorothy L. Citizen works for the same auto auction that I do. All cases will be complete with all the filings and all the cites used in each case. I will post these 5 case in this thread each time. so that you can go look and see for yourself how it's done.
No, it isn't up yet and it may very well be tomorrow nite before I can get it put up. I would expect that. I am also working on a new discovery that if proven valid and applicable will also be a devastating tool to use for elimination of the debt. While it would only be applicable in cases of actual loans by financial institutions as far as I can see, it also begins to look like those institutions also have a few obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act and if not complied with in the original contract would, according to the law as I am currently reading it, present an insurmountable defense against the contract. I am also looking at another one in UCE that seems to indicate that if a creditor wishes to sell a debt to a 3rd party, he must first of all contact the debtor and give him first opportunity to purchase the debt for whatever the party of the 3rd part might be willing to pay for the debt. Failure to do so may very well present opportunity for cancellation of the debt though suit. The way that would best work (if it turns out to be a valid theory) is that when the collection agency or other third party claims to have bought the debt, the debtor could then demand that the collection agency (or maybe the creditor) reveal the true selling price of the contract. In either case, the debt would immediately become a nullity because the original creditor failed to offer the debtor the option to purchase at the same price as the 3rd party paid. These would most certainly be interesting strategies in the event that they actually turned out to be true. Sadly enough, I have no idea at the present time if there is any hope of their being true or not. It's going to take some research, and maybe lots of it in order to figure it out.
Continuing with the posting of actual court cases where pro se litigants went in and beat experienced attorneys at their own games, the court room saga of Dorothy L. Citizen is now posted at http://www.creditwrench.com/amax1.html http://www.creditwrench.com/amax2.html Doroty L. Citizen defeated an attorney with an Oklahoma Bar Association number of 103, meaning that he was one of the oldest professional practicing attorneys in the State of Oklahoma. He made mistakes in filing his petition for summary judgment in the amount of $14,000 against Dorothy L. Citizen , a 67 year old widow. The judgment, if it had been successful, would have taken away her home and she would have been homeless.
Bill, I believe that they hold some truth. There are some crazy things that are not revealed to the consumer. I have been trying to prove the validity of these ideas also. It seems that you would need the help of a cpa on some of them. These arent new ideas, but they have worked for others. If you remember one of my posts a little while back I argued some of these points right here with Anthony. He did not like them and he tore the ideas up...Well, I have been crazy enought to apply one of them after being served and it worked. This stuff is more than interesting...
Bill, Did you happen to notice that the info from the UCE backs up the theory of deviation from the original contract. Of course you would have to offer the person in the original agreement the first chance to purchase the debt. Like Ive said before I am not a lawyer, but I can read. It is definately worth pursuing. Anything new or innovating always gets the smack down in its beginning birthing stage. That is why so many ideas never make it past their infancy. Do you notice how this is a breech of contract. HMMMMM...
Godaddyo You might have noticed in other threads that I have my ways when it comes to the "smackdown" artists. -0) In the situation where they have to give the debtor first chance to buy the debt, as I see it, that's only going to work in the case where there is a signed contract and where it was indeed sold to a 3rd party. An interesting place to "wonder" if it applicable is in my case with the car I just bought. It's already been sold 3 times, at least in a sense. First the dealer sells it to me, then he sells it to the finance company and then the finance company sold it to yet another finance company. All that in less than 6 months. If indeed I am on to the right track here, then did each of them have to give me first chance at the debt? Or does that apply only to situations where the debt was sold to collectors or other non-financial entities? Could the debtor raise this/these issues in the event (s)he defaulted? How would this affect repossession? Could the debtor raise this issue against the "bank" who repossessed the car? In the instance of the 3 re-sales of my car, how long would I have to object to the process and the violation of my rights? Is there a SOL on that? These are all questions that will have to be resolved because the technique would be so potent if we have all of the case cites to back up whatever issues we might bring up in some future situation, either in court or out of it. I sure don't want to go off half-cocked raising "strawman" type arguments that are silly and won't hold water. Worse yet would be to advocate to others that they can go do something and then have it get slapped down as a frivolous argument in a court of law. Of course, that can happen, but if one really does have all his duck in a row then the case would be appealable. Lots of digging needs to be done on this matter to come up with the truth of the matter. Have you looked at the two court cases I have posted so far? What did you think of them?
I am currently building a large set of court cases and legal briefs dealing with pro se litigants and info one might use for filing cases on a pro se basis. I have now built an index page for them so one can follow all the links and learn about a wide variety of legalese. the index page is at http://www.creditwrench.com/legalindex.html I will be adding a lot of information to these pages as time permits, so you will need to bookmark it and return often to see what else is new on the site.
So What? FYI, curiouser brings up some valid points: Curiouserâ??s original post is No. 9, via the following link: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?pgnum=1&postid=65029#post65029
Re: So What? Tell me something there, Mr. Heck Why is it that you and Anthony Villasenor are using almost identical DNS numbers? I'll bet you know him pretty well, don't you?
