OFFICIAL J-ACCUSE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS BLOG

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: re: non judicial foreclosure law....DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR ME...
From: Dru Knight
2. Re: 3rd party debt collector and the National Arbitration Forum
From: "Bill Bauer"
3. Re: re: non judicial foreclosure law....DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR ME...
From: "rs"
4. Re: non judicial foreclosure law....DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR ME...
From: "Bill Bauer"
5. Re: non judicial foreclosure law....DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR ME...
From: "Bill Bauer"
6. Re: 3rd party debt collector and the National Arbitration Forum
From: "eelimak"
7. Re: 3rd party debt collector and the National Arbitration Forum
From: "Bill Bauer" ceo@creditwrench.com

druspews
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:23:39 -0000
From: "Bill Bauer"
Subject: Re: 3rd party debt collector and the National Arbitration Forum

If-then arguments may sound logical as yours does but where do we
find the basis for request for validation? We find it in FDCPA, not in
an if-then argument. So what is a request for validation? It is not a
dispute but rather a demand for the information that one needs to
formulate a dispute in the event one might be able to find something
to dispute. A request for validation cannot be considered a dispute
unless it disputes something in particular or contains a statement
that you dispute the debt and each and every part thereof. Disputes
must be accompanied by a reasonable argument stating why you dispute
the debt or some portion thereof and the presentment of some
reasonable argument to support your dispute. Otherwise it will be seen
as nothing more than a ruse to try to get out of paying what you
justly and reasonably owe.

You can argue all the presentments, demands, defaults, notarial
protests and whatever you like and what is going to happen in court is
that the smart-alec lawyer will get up and loudly proclaim that you
got all that junk off the internet and the judge's eyeballs will
suddenly glaze over and roll heavenward. After that it will make
absolutely no difference what you say.

Trying to get judges to understand FDCPA is bad enough, let alone
trying to explain presentments, notary sojaks and other popular
internet arguments.

The only way to win is to present arguments that the judge has a
crying chance of understanding. In order to do that you must
understand the causes of action, the rules of civil procedure and the
rules of evidence.

Anything else is off the wall and out to lunch no matter how good it
may sound.

Dru Knight wrote:
> Bill:
> If everything that we recieve is a
> presentment, then the request for validation is a
> contract offer if written as one and they would
> be in dishonor removing standing? dru

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:12:16 -0000
From: "Bill Bauer"
Subject: Re: non judicial foreclosure law....DOESN'T LOOK GOOD FOR ME...

Would you mind telling us which one of
Richard Cornforth's books explains that strategy?

Charlie Girl:
> This is just a thought try filing an invoice
> for the amount of the foreclosure and aking the
> judge to pay it from the court bond or do an
> afv/rfv on any presentment they made to
> you....dru

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:55:44 -0000
From: "eelimak"
Subject: Re: 3rd party debt collector and the National Arbitration Forum

Good info Bill, That is my strategy. I have a trial on Friday.

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:35:24 -0000
From: "Bill Bauer"
Subject: Re: 3rd party debt collector and the National Arbitration Forum

I do hope that you have filed a good countersuit, made them answer
a good and valid set of admissions and interrogatories as well
as having filed some motions to dismiss such as quite possibly a
motion to dismiss on grounds that the plaintiff is not the party
of real interest. I also hope that you called the "plaintiff" and
asked them if it would be possible to pay the account in full before
you filed the motion so that you knew whether or not they really
were the party of real interest in the case.

Filing a motion on those grounds can be fruitful because it catches
them off balance. Once that motion is filed they have to scurry
around and get a notarized power of attorney or produce the assignment
in order to prove that they are the party of real interest in the case.
It's either that or get their case dismissed for them. They can also
prove that they are the party of real interest by proving that they
bought the note but if they bring the suit in the name of the bank
and they have bought the note and filed in the name of the bank then
it is a false lawsuit. If they bought the note then they have to
file in their own name, not the name of the bank and prove the sale.

That exposes how much they paid for the debt and they usually don't
want to do that very badly either. That can be very embarassing to
them.

How about that affidavit of the supposed expert? Did you question that?

I hope so.

Tell us what motions and courtersuits and the like you filed in the
case. Tell us how you answered the complaint.

Lets see if we can get some learning going on around here.