|
|
Re: Answered Interrogatories
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by Keyser Soze
(205.188.208.41) on September 18, 2003 at 22:16:39:
In Reply to: Answered Interrogatories posted by Lost in Ok on September 18, 2003 at 18:24:09:
Dear Lost in OK; Beautiful, you are grinding down these termites rather finely. Rememember pleading 'Lack of Knowledge" is an answer. They might claim you didn't answer all the questions but you did. If you don't know then that's a perfectly acceptable answer. The enemy doesn't like that answer because it forces him to sift through records he doesn't have. It makes him work to come up with some sort of proof for his sleazly larcenous claims against you. Something that is a bit more substantive than,"I don't feel like regular work and no respectable law firm will hire me 'cause I'm a real two-bit lowlife so like, uh, I wanna claim people owe me money and get it from them 'cause like I have this crack dealer to pay and I want the court to do my goon work for me."
That's about the speed of these rancid putrid dumbells. So, by indicating you 'Lack Knowledge" you are in effect compelling the enemy to get off his substantial tail and get to work for a change. You are in effect saying, "Hey pal, this is your picnic, you invited me against my will under color of law backed by force of the gun, so you wanna eat, jerk? So make the sandwiches already. Just the way your old Ma used to, green meat garnished with rat droppings freshly swept from the formal dining room floor of the old family homestead."
Seriously, making these puke-barrels buckle down and get to work costs them time and money thus defeating the whole purpose of their business. They are about shaking people down for little to no cost of either time or money. The more you do this, the more inclined they may be to just mosey along to the next target and leave you alone.
You may wish to file an Objection to the Motion for Summary Judgement citing failure to validate as grounds. Remember just because some cretin with a law degree from Bill's Law School files a Motion for Summary doesn't mean he's going to get it, that it unless you sit back and allow it to happen unchallenged. You file the Objection and just as you've so adroitly filed interogatories and admissions against these perps, you again are forcing them to prove their claims. In addition to expenditures of time and money this also draws them closer into your web and positions them more squarely in front of the judge. Now they had better have some proof or they risk angering the court. If you do this as an unsophisticated layman that's one thing, the lawyer is an officer of the court, an expert in his field. For him no excuses. Good for you. Too bad for him.
Hope this helps. Unsophisticatedly,
Keyser Soze "People say I talk too much."
- Roger 'Verbal' Kint, "The Usual Suspects"
c. 1995
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
