Now it is my turn to non-respond to them. (LOL) You see, knowing how this process always works before it happens helps a lot. That's why I always recommend that defendants send their demand for admissions first, before the plaintiff has a chance to serve their demands on you. Then they have to answer first and you can turn their own answers back on them. See how they like that. They can't very well complain about it because that is the way they responded to my demands for admissions.(LOL) I've put my responses to them on my google docs pages The link to it is in my signature line below. I do hope you will enjoy the reading. There is quite a bit of it. I'm a pretty fast typer and even so it took me more than 12 hours to prepare it. And of course what they probably don't suspect is that my demand for production of documents will go out to them along with my responses (or non-responses) to their questions. My demand for production of documents will be based on what I learned from their responses. Actually they taught me a great deal about Oklahoma repossession laws. Their smart-aleck denials to my demand for admissions will give me a solid foundation for my demand for production of documents. Once I get their refusals to comply then I will have grounds to take it to the next level. Of course I might think about filing motion for dismissal at this time based on the fact that they sent me a letter demanding more than $10,000 then filed the case for less than $10,000 then in their demand for admissions they demanded that I admit that I owe more than $10,000 once again. Seems to me that just might give rise to grounds for dismissal since we are in special court which cannot hear cases for greater than $10,000. I'm really on the fence about whether I want to do that or not and what the chances might be that such a motion would get the case dismissed or not. Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that if the case were to get dismissed in lower court they could come back and refile in district because the dismissal would not have decided the merits of the case so Res Judicata probably wouldn't apply. Of course, the problem then would obviously be that the amount they sue for would be much, much greater. That don't bother me any. Seems to me I recall something about misrepresenting the amount, character or legal status of the debt????? (LOL). Then there is the other one somewhere about providing false and misleading information to a consumer????? (LOL) Anyway, click on my signature line and go read my responses to their demands. I think you will get a big kick out of them.