Re: Discovery

Posted by lucy (199.182.118.64) on August 23, 2002 at 18:16:04:

In Reply to: Discovery posted by orange dog on August 23, 2002 at 11:44:50:

Was the information also verified by the CC company in sworn affidavit?

NOT an officer, employee, agent, or independent contractor of their company OR ANY AFFILIATE OR SUBSIDIARY, an officer, employee, or agent of the CC company.

YOUR Exhibit A, I trust, was FDCPA in full with appended opinions?

Respectfully point out to the court it is missing pertinent validation information:

the date of last payment is not included in this evidence, the date the debt was charged off is not included, nor anything else included that would allow identification of the affidavit as pertaining to an debt proscribed from litigation by FDCPA.

Respectfully submit that the burden of proof that the debt IS within statutes of limitations permitting litigation lies with plaintiff.

EVEN IF YOU NEVER DISPUTED THE DEBT, read FDCPA, your rights are protected.

Respectfully request that plaintiff submit into evidence a copy of whatever it is plaintiff had identifying the debt at the time plaintiff purchased the debt. SOMETHING apparently waves blood at these sharks.

PRESUMING A DEBT WHERE SOL HAS RUN IS VALID TO LITIGATE is awfully arrogant.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup