Served a summons, what do I do?

26

We conclude that the statements of Finletter and Harmon can be reasonably read to assert privilege over technical information about the B-29. The formal claim of privilege made by Secretary Finletter states:
27

The defendant further objects to the production of this report, together with the statements of witnesses, for the reason that the aircraft in question, together with the personnel on board, were engaged in a confidential mission of the Air Force. The airplane likewise carried confidential equipment on board and any disclosure of its mission or information concerning its operation or performance would be prejudicial to this department and would not be in the public interest.
28

(Claim of Privilege by the Secretary of the Air Force (emphasis added).)
29

Appellants and the Government disagree on whether the pronoun "its" refers only to the electronic equipment on board or the B-29 airplane itself. While both readings are conceivable, the Government's is more logical. It is more natural to refer to an airplane's mission than to refer to the confidential equipment's mission. At the very least, the statement is readily susceptible to the reading preferred by the Government.
30

Appellants' contention about the meaning of "its" in the claim of privilege is also completely undercut by the statement in their original Supreme Court brief that "the Secretary for Air [sic] in his claim of privilege states (R. 22) that `any disclosure of its (the airplane's) mission or information concerning its operation or performance would be prejudicial"' and that it was "obvious that the Air Force considers that all details concerning the operation of the airplane are `classified."' (Brief for Respondents submitted to the Supreme Court at 35 n.4 (emphasis added) (parenthetical alteration in the original).)
31

Nothing in Judge Advocate General Harmon's affidavit contradicts the Government's contention that the claim of privilege referred to the B-29 itself rather than solely the secret mission and equipment.
32

* * * * *
33

Because there is an obviously reasonable truthful interpretation of the statements made by the Air Force, Appellants are unable to make out a claim for the perjury which, as explained above, forms the basis for their fraud upon the court claim. We, therefore, conclude that Appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
34

We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Notes:
1

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has set forth five elements of fraud upon the court which consist of conduct: "1. On the part of an officer of the court; 2. That is directed to the `judicial machinery' itself; 3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5. That deceives the court."Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir.1993).

Although other United States Courts of Appeals have not articulated express elements of fraud upon the court as the Sixth Circuit did, the doctrine has been characterized "as a scheme to interfere with the judicial machinery performing the task of impartial adjudication, as by preventing the opposing party from fairly presenting his case or defense." In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir.1976) (citations omitted); see also Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir.1978) (holding "only the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the court"). Additionally, fraud upon the court differs from fraud on an adverse party in that it "is limited to fraud which seriously affects the integrity of the normal process of adjudication." Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556, 559 (2d Cir.1988).

Other United States Courts of Appeals expressly require that fraud upon the court must involve an officer of the court. See Geo. P. Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 71 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir.1995); Demjanjuk, 10 F.3d at 348. The Ninth Circuit noted that "one species of fraud upon the court occurs when an `officer of the court' perpetrates fraud affecting the ability of the court or jury to impartially judge a case." Pumphrey v. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir.1995); see also Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 553 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that "fraud on the court should embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court") (citation omitted); Kerwit Med. Prods., Inc. v. N. & H. Instruments, Inc., 616 F.2d 833, 837 (11th Cir.1980) (same).
2

In this view that we take, we extend to Appellants the full reach of case law that prescribed required elements of "fraud upon the court." Were we to proceed otherwise, the following discussion would not have been necessary to affirm the judgment of the District Court
3

Even if we concluded that the Air Force's claim of privilege could not be read to include concern about revealing the workings of the B-29, we would be obligated to consider whether certain information contained in the accident report actually revealed sensitive information about the mission and the electronic equipment involved. The accident report revealed, for example, that the project was being carried out by "the 3150th Electronics Squadron," that the mission required an "aircraft capable of dropping bombs" and that the mission required an airplane capable of "operating at altitudes of 20,000 feet and above." (Report of Special Investigation of Aircraft Accident Involving TB-29-100BS No. 45-21866.) Our conclusion that information about the workings of the B-29 was included within the claim of privilege makes it unnecessary to engage in this analysis. If such an analysis were necessary, it would require a certain amount of deference to the Government's position because of the near impossibility of determining with any level of certainty what seemingly insignificant pieces of information would have been of keen interest to a Soviet spy fifty years agoSee e.g., Knight v. C.I.A., 872 F.2d 660, 663 (5th Cir.1989) ("[E]ven the most apparently innocuous [information] can yield valuable intelligence."); C.I.A. v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 178, 105 S.Ct. 1881, 85 L.Ed.2d 173 (1985) ("Foreign intelligence services have both the capacity to gather and analyze any information that is in the public domain and the substantial expertise in deducing the identities of intelligence sources from seemingly unimportant details. In this context, the very nature of the intelligence apparatus of any country is to try to find out the concerns of others; bits and pieces of data `may aid in piecing together bits of other information even when the individual piece is not of obvious importance in itself.'" (citation omitted)).

CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org

 

However, the method you espouse is fraud, pure and simple. The OP is being sued.

The OP needs to follow the Rules of the OP's jurisdiction.

 

Helpful??

I'm sure that posting the full context of the decision would be helpful if you also pointed out what you see that is or might be helpful. In otherwords, what is your point?

 

Fraud? In order for a fraud to have taken place the OP would have to make some statement to the court or to the plaintiff in order to commit a fraud. Courts do not ask defendants whether they have other judgments against them. Plaintiff's attorneys find out about such things in diverse ways. They quite often simply place their garnishments and wait for the reply from the employer which would be that a garnishment is already in place for the full amount allowable by law. If the defendant is asked whether or not they have any other garnishments he must reveal that he does. Fraud must be proven if alleged as well as who committed the fraud and how it was done.
Quite frankly, I don't care one way or the other. I'm not advocating that anyone do that nor am I trying to sell anything. It is simply something that I am aware of and that I did with my own property many years ago. I have never had any reason to put it to the test however and I hope that I never do. I've never used it to garnish my own wages but if I were ever sued I might very well do so.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt that I would for the simple reason that if I were ever sued it would be because I lost my job and could not find other employment. Even if I lost my job I would not be getting sued because I don't have any debts that I can't pay off easily. I have enough cash saved to pay off any debts I might have, my home is paid for and I pay off any credit cards every month. My vehicles are all paid for too.

 

You could probably get the same thing for free by filing a motion for extension of time to seek legal assistance. I've never seen a judge deny that yet.

 

Why do you think that one is better than the sworn denial of debt? What do you plan to do about discovery?

 

The sworn denial is an answer and if you file a sworn denial of debt that is all you need to file for the time being.

What will you do about discovery?

 

That time has already come. Your demand for admissions needs to go out to the attorney at the same time you send them your response.

That is possible but I would not count on it. [/quote] My husband is being sued for such a small amount I would hope it wouldn't be worth their time to pursue.[/quote]Quit hoping and start thinking about reality. It may seem small now but if they get a judgment and a garnishment it will soon be much more expensive. The lawyers don't care because they get paid no matter what happens. They will hound you to death and keep piling up the amount you owe them. If you don't pay up they will garnish wages and that will cost even more. Hundreds of dollars more.

They might like a default but they are confident they will get a judgment. They don't care whether it is a default or a summary. All the same to them.

No. Save that for later in court.

Finding out is what discovery is for. Use it wisely.

Getting that is called Demand for Production of Documents and is part of discovery.

 

Those all seem pretty good to me.

 

No, if you are going to allege that you need to have proof that it is and should be filed as a motion to dismiss based on SOL. If you can prove that it is beyond SOL and intend to use that defense it should be filed at the same time as your graduated denial. If you file motion to dismiss you will also need a notice of hearing signed by the judge setting a date for your motion.

Chances are that they will not provide you with all the documentation you demand. Maybe none of it. If they don't then you will have to use subpoena dueces tecum to get at the documents.
I realize that when I told you about subpoena dueces tecum you have no idea what that is so google that term and learn about it, how it is used, why and under what circumstances. That way if you need it you will know all about it. You don't need a judge's signature on it but you will save time and grief if you get it signed by the judge before you send it. If it isn't signed by the judge it really carries no weight at all and you will have to waste time doing it all over the right way.

Why are you considering sending demand for production of documents prior to sending demand for admissions? If you don't use admissions first you will be hurting your chances that demand for production of documents will be successful. As I said before, your demand for admissions should carry about 40 or so items you want them to admit to but you can't ask them any questions in the process because if you do they will claim that your demand is for interrogatories and you will get nothing at all out of them except replies that are of no value whatever. They will use every excuse in the books to evade your questions. Make them admit to things first then go after them with admissions and if necessary you can use interrogatories to pry the answers out of them. Doing that way will make the process last much too. You probably want to delay the almost inevitable as long as possible and spreading it out that way helps get the job done.

 

There you go trying to use some piece of garbage you got off the internet somewhere after some of us here have told you not to do that.

Discovery is never filed with the court. The clerk will tell you that they don't want it

Demand for admissions is just what it says it is. (example)Admit that you have no documentation to support your claims that the Defendant owes money to the Plaintiff. Then when they deny that you can demand that they produce the documentation they claimed they have when you submit your demand for documentation. If you don't do it that way then you are just on a fishing trip and that will get you nowhere fast. If they say they have something you want or need for your defense then later fail or refuse to produce it you can use Subpoena Duces Tecum to force them to produce it.

 

I can't help but wonder if when the CAs and CRAs scan your letters after they get them, if they don't also analyze the text for some of those key phrases found in the letters pulled off the internet boards (e.g. "this is not a request for verification..."). Then, when they find some of those, just send the letter and the scan into the bit-bucket.

I thought I read that somewhere as one of the ways they tried to adapt to the flurry of letters they get from "credit repair" sites and businesses, but I could be mistaken.