Michigan bar member for 29 years & don't know how to defend.

#1 11.01.2007, 10:18

bobblehr Newbie Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4

Help: I am being sued I received a summons last Friday from a CA while I was out of town (Left it with my brother). They didnt stamp/date anything. I want to file the "Intention to Defend" but cant afford an attorney to help with it. Should I just sign it and leave the reasons blank for the time being? Also, is this form mailed in or filed in person? I pulled the attorneys records in my county, and am going to see if I can watch a case this week.

apexcrsrv

View Public Profile

Visit apexcrsrv's homepage!

Find all posts by apexcrsrv

#3 11.19.2007, 16:00

knk112 Newbie Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1

I been served last week also! I'm plan to defend myself. I have 10 days to file and answer. I'm going to the courty house to the law library to get research similar cases and affrimative denfenses that I can use.

knk112

View Public Profile

Find all posts by knk112

#4 11.21.2007, 11:36

Capitan Newbie Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2

Lawsuits Ideally, you need to talk to a lawyer. If you can't afford one, call your county bar association and see if they have either a referral program (you can have a 1/2 hour conference with a member attorney for free) or legal aid resources. If that is not an option, try to locate the court's court rules online, usually at a state court website. Depending on the state and the court, "leaving a summons with your brother" may or may not be good service. You need to make sure the CA is following the court court procedure. --Michigan bar member for 29+ years.

Capitan

View Public Profile

Find all posts by Capitan

#5 11.21.2007, 21:44

cap1sucks Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 598

Intent to defend, affirmative defenses, answers to the summons, lawyers, all of them about as useful as putting a milk bucket under a bull if not worse. The best way to deal with a summons and complaint in most cases is to file a motion for more definitive statements. Make the lawyer explain and prove each and every little thing he says in his complaint. If he says his plaintiff is duly authorized to do business in your state make him explain who authorized his plaintiff to do business in your state. By what authority do they do business in your state? If he names First USA Bank N.A. as being the plaintiff (for instance) go to google and type in OCC and hit search button. That will take you to the office of the comptroller of the Currency which is a government agency of the United States Treasury. Look in the right hand column and you will see lists of all of the banks authorized by the United States Treasury to do business as Nationally Accredited banks hence the letters N.A. and you just might be surprised to learn that First USA Bank is not even listed there, much less being a N.A. bank. So if that is the case for the plaintiff in your case then make the lawyer explain what N.A. means and prove that the plaintiff is not a nationally accredited bank as he has claimed. If he says that the court has jurisdiction and venue make him explain what those terms mean and by what authority does the court have jurisdiction and venue. There are multiple forms of jurisdiction. Make him tell you whether he means geographical jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, IN PERSONAM jurisdiction or exact which types of jurisdiction the court has and how it got jurisdictions. His simple statement that the court has jurisdiction don't cut no ice. If he talks about Quantum Meriute then make him explain what that is and how it applies to you. If he talks about ACCOUNT STATED or UNJUST ENRICHMENT make him explain those terms to you because you are so stupid you don't understand a single thing he claims and you wouldn't admit it if you did. You can't file a motion for a more definitive statement in some states but you can demand a Bill of Particulars in those states and so you simply call your motion for more definitive statements a Bill of Particulars instead of a motion for more definitive statements. Same thing, really, and either way it serves as your response to the summons and complaint even if the judge won't let you do it. Most judges will allow it. And of course the lawyer will object to that in many instances, so if he files an objection you will have to answer his objection and state why you don't understand all his legal nonsense. As an unsophisticated consumer you have the legal right to demand those explanations in order to properly prepare your defense. If he still don't answer all your questions then you file motion to deem admitted. You have that right because the court obviously ordered the plaintiff to answer so if they don't they are actually in contempt of court and can't use any of those terms or statements in their prosecution of the case. So if they can't use any of those words, terms or phrases what have they got left? Nothing at all. Then send them a demand for production of documents and if they don't respond then you can file motion to compel or subpoena Duces Tecum, either one. Then when they do answer your demands you probably will either have grounds to dismiss or you might be able to use them to craft your interrogatories and demand for admissions. More ammo to use against them. Then get ready for the real fun by taking them to federal court for violations of FDCPA and FCRA and that's when the rubber really meets the road. Once you get them there it is no longer a question of whether or not you owe them money bur rather only why they broke the law and if you are right and you have the proof of their wrong doing and you get to the Rule 26(f) meeting and you explain to them what they did wrong and show your proof they suddenly get religion and they don't want to go to a full blown trial at any price. They will probably only want to know what it is going to take to make you go away. Of course, the price is going to start off with dismissal of their lower court suit, promise in writing to never reveal the terms of the settlement agreement to any third party for any reason whatever, never sell or assign the debt to any other party, pay your court costs and your attorney fees (federal courts have now ruled that even as a pro se they must pay you reasonable attorney fees and judges who refuse to award you attorney fees will be reversed on appeal) and remove any and all derogatory remarks from your credit reports. They don't want to agree to those terms? Ok Pal, we will let the judge and jury decide what happens and believe me, they don't want to go there. Now that is the way to get your credit repair done once and for all. __________________ Cap1sucks message forum

cap1sucks

View Public Profile

Visit cap1sucks's homepage!

Find all posts by cap1sucks

#9 11.22.2007, 09:01

Oracle Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 77

Cap1sucks seems to be getting ahead of himself. Intent ot Defend is likely a jurisdictional term for answering the complaint. Without an answer, the plaintiff can go for a default judgement. Cap1sucks is talking about discovery, a very separate part of the court process and dictated by the Court's rules of procedure. Original Poster needs to answer the complaint and add any affirmative defenses that he might have. He can then move on to discovery. As much as Cap1sucks would like to have the procedure meet his view, the Courts have the power to define how they work. And they have. Original Poster, get an attorney, or read the Rules of Civil Procedures for your district and proceed accordingly.

Oracle

View Public Profile

Find all posts by Oracle

#10 11.22.2007, 09:42

apexcrsrv Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: West Virginia Posts: 707

No, Cap1sucks is absolutely correct. A motion for a more definitive statement is filed before a responsive pleading. Think about it, how can you file an answer to a Complaint you don't comprehend. Now, my bet is that this jurisdiction follows the notice pleading rules of procedure but, moving for particulars (sorry, VA Procedure kicking in) is an excellent procedural move which, naturally, comes before an Answer. If this is debt purchaser, they usually never respond. If an Original Creditor, they probably will object citing notice pleading yada yada yada. Just oppose the objection and the judge will defer to the self-represented litigant. However, a Motion for a More Definitive Statement is not in the province of the discovery process. It is not interrogatories, admission, requests, inspections, etc. It is filed pre-Answer, Motion To Dismiss, JMOL or whatever you choose as a responsive pleading. In fact, if you file that answer, you cannot turn around and then file this or a 12b6 or really anything besides a dispositive motion on the facts or law. Procedure is gone. No, because the OP has already stated that they can't afford an attorney file the Motion IF THEIR IS A CONTRACT ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF THE COMPLAINT. If there is no contract, simply file a Motion to Dismiss because the Plaintiff has requested relief which cannot be granted. In other words, they have no evidence without a contract. They may have an affadivit instead. If that is all, call the judge's chambers and set a trial date or wait for it if already set. They won't be able to get the affidavit in without the affiant being present. You will then move to dismiss/strike at their close insofar as they cannot prove the allegation that their is a debt which you owe to them. Actually, in the above case, you would be able to counter under the FDCPA. __________________ http://www.apexcreditservices.com

apexcrsrv

View Public Profile

Visit apexcrsrv's homepage!

Find all posts by apexcrsrv

#11 Yesterday, 22:21

cap1sucks Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 598

Quote: Originally Posted by apexcrsrv No, Cap1sucks is absolutely correct. A motion for a more definitive statement is filed before a responsive pleading. Think about it, how can you file an answer to a Complaint you don't comprehend. . Thank You, Apex. Now then, as to another statement you also made in that same post to which I currently reply, you said Quote: Actually, in the above case, you would be able to counter under the FDCPA. I also concur with that statement with just one little exception. While one can do just as you have suggested it is not practical to do so in most lower courts for the simple reason that the only question before the court is whether or not the debtor owes the debt and that is the only thing the court is usually interested in hearing about. Anything else will be totally ignored or ruled against. What they might have done to the defendant has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the debtor owes the debt. As Bill Bauer teaches, the answer is to file in federal court for their violations of FDCPA and not try to use it against a plaintiff's demand for payment via judgment proceedings. In federal court it makes absolutely no difference whether the plaintiff owes the defendant money or whether the defendant has a judgment against the plaintiff or any of that. The only question before the federal court is whether or not the defendant broke the law. is currently heavily involved with beating arbitration cases and seems to be making some headway. One of his students in Missouri filed a motion for injunctive relief against arbitration and NAF had an attorney put in an appearance objecting to the motion for injunctive relief but that attorney cannot put in an appearance for NAF in the case for the simple reason that no arbitrator can be sued nor can they appear in any court case. They are totally immune from any court action against them. So their attorney has no right to appear in any court of law to object to the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief in the Missouri court. So the next move seems to be to put in a motion in limine to exclude anything the NAF attorney might say. According to both federal and Missouri state law NAF can neither be sued nor can the make any appearance in any court of law on their own behalf. The way I found out about all this was by listening in on his Friday night conference call last night. Bill didn't say much but just let everybody else do all the talking. The call started at 7:00 P.M. and lasted until after midnight as they usually do. They also talked a lot about IRS and 1099 forms but that was late in the evening and when that started it was about 11:00 and I got tired and went to bed. __________________ Cap1sucks message forum

E. Normis Debtor pulls another dumb act.

Recently E. Normis Debtor posted the following on his blog which he calls westerncapital-thetruth from which he posts his venomous remarks about Robert Paisola, Thief-in-Chief of Western Capital Financial. Here is what he had to cry about.

Sunday, October 28, 2007
New federal lawsuit filed against Paisola
As promised, here is a copy of the most recent federal suit filed against Western Capital CEO Robert Paisola.

http://www.geocities.com/e_normis_debtor/tstn.pdf

The latest information I have indicates that Paisola is, once again, attempting to evade service. Accordingly, I will be dispatching my top investigator to Utah to assist in locating him.

// posted by E. Normis Debtor @ 3:19 PM

Normie is all mouth and no action. Like Robert Paisola, he has no investigators, top, bottom, middle or any other kind. He first promised to post the case he refers to back on October 17th and still hasn't produced it. As usual, if you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and you want production rather than hot air you need to reply on creditwrench to provide it. Here is the entire complaint against Robert Paisola.

Assholes of the world

While Normie's picture isn't in this short movie, the music fits him like a glove.
Assholes of the world

Creditwrench-thetruth.com

I see that the fool who maliciously calls himself "creditwrench-thetruth" has now decided to bring his nonsense blog back up on line. He hasn't found anything new to post on it however. His tirades make little sense and their falsity is quickly revealed by simply visiting Allexperts.com and checking out the answers given by Creditwrench CEO Bill Bauer and you will soon see for yourself how ignorant and baseless the statements made by Enormis Debtor really are. Here is one such answer to a question posted by Kita.

Name: kita

Subject: constable trying to deliver on a credit card debt

Question: Hi. I was informed that the constable here tried to deliver a paper of some sort and all he would say was it was about a credit card. I was informed that I can be sued. I live in texas and are wondering what should i do..can they put a judgement on my home and also I have gas royalties paid to me monthly can they attach to that or my bank accounts or garnish my wages? is there any forms i can fill out to delay any of this? do I avoid the constable? i do have credit card debt i think in the ammount of 30 to 40,000 dollars and i did try and negotiate payment with them yrs ago due to unemployment but they wouldnt work with me and im sure now it has racked up. so what are my options and where do i find forms, and how do i find out where to send them .I do figure it is Asset Acceptance or something like that i did call them a few months ago about a charge that wasnt mine and they brought up alot of other stuff as well and well talked very ugly to me so i hung up..I have alot of bills and alot of health things going on which take my money for insulin and so forth and i know there are ways to do something with out filing bankrupsy...you seem very intellegent and informative and any info you can provide would be so helpfull..

thanks

kita

Answer: I'm pretty sure you called me on the phone this afternoon and we discussed this entire matter but I'll answer anyway.

I do appreciate your calling me. Can they take your oil and gas royalties? They can attach those if they find out you are getting them and yes, they can eventually force you to tell them about that in a garnishment hearing. If your home is homesteaded in Texas then it should be safe from liens. Do you avoid the constable? That's up to you but I sure wouldn't bake him a cake and invite him in. If he catches you in then you might as well take the summons. They will nail it on you one way or another sooner or later but in the meantime you might as well get all the time you can until they do hang it on you. Bankruptcy is a very poor thing to do. As a matter of fact, the new bankruptcy law has made it so much harder to file bk now that large numbers of people are simply walking away from their mortgages rather than filing BK and that is beginning to bite back by drastically adding to the home foreclosure problems the nation is already having. If they had left the BK laws alone and let people include their mortgages in bankruptcy and end up keeping their homes that would not have happened. The system wasn't really broke and they tried to fix it anyway and now it is coming back to haunt them in ways they never dreamed would happen.

And it could not have happened at a worse time for our economy. Bankruptcy never was a good option anyway. Creditwrench methods work in such a way that the same thing is accomplished with a lot lower price tag and is much better because it leaves on bad marks on your credit reports. All of that just confirms an old adage that says that government never has answers to the questions one needs answered. All they manage to do is create more questions which also remain unanswered for all practical purposes.

Callier vs Bauer -- Bauer wins the case.

Bauer defeats Plaintiff in Callier v. Bauer

The plaintiffs in Callier vs. Bauer, a federal court case in El Paso Texas lost their case when they could not prove their allegations.

Since they could not prove their case they have obviously filed a malicious lawsuit against Creditwrench CEO Bill Bauer.

How can we know that such is the case? That's easy. Here are the requirements to prove a case of malicious prosecution.

The elements of a malicious prosecution case are (1) that the defendant filed and/or prosecuted the underlying civil action; (2) a favorable termination of the prior case, in which the innocence of the former defendant was established; (3) the absence of probable cause, meaning that no reasonable attorney would have considered it to be tenable; (4) malice, which can be implied from a conscious disregard for the consequences, from a lack of probable cause, and from inadequate investigation and research, and (5) damages.

Obviously it will not be difficult to prove that the defendant filed and or prosecuted the underlying civil action.

And it will not be difficult to prove that the termination of the prior case in which the innocence of the former defendant, Billie Bauer was established when the plaintiff(s) could not prove their case and had to let it be dismissed by the court for lack of proof of their complaints.

The third element of proof is that there was no probable cause meaning that no resonable attorney would have considered it to be tenable and

Malice, which can be implied from a conscious disregard for the consequences, from a lack of probable cause and from inadequate investigation and research and

of course the damages. The Plaintiff in the new case soon to be filed in the Western District Federal Court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will probably ask for and demand unlimited damages.

The first case will be filed against Ana Callier for her attempt to claim that Creditwrench CEO Billie Bauer had stalked her under 18 U.S.C. 2261(a). Since there had never been any contact of any kind whatever with the defendant by the new plaintiff, Ana Callier could not possibly have proven her case and the Judge in the previous case obviously knew that. The court's major reason for dismissing the case presented by Ana Callier was that the charge of stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261(a) is a criminal complaint and can only be brought by a U.S. Prosecutor thereby fullfilling the third element of malicious prosecution.

On Thursday, June 21, 2007 the author of the blog known as angryconsumer.blogspot.com wrote the following, to wit:

Yup, that's right, Billie we've had enough of your stuff, and you've been sued. It was filed yesterday, and you should get your invitation around 10AM to the party we are having in his honor in court. Come on down, bring a friend, and we can all get to know each other really well in court.

If someone has such a burning desire to meet me in a federal court their hearfelt desire should not be denied. To do so would indeed be a shame and so in order that they might have their burning desire fullfilled we will give them that opportunity to do so by inviting them to come to Oklahoma City for that special purpose. Our first invitation will be directed to Ana Callier. I'm sure that lady would just love to come to Oklahoma City to defend a case of malicious prosecution against her for unlimited damages.

Of course, since I am well aware that such a trip will be a bit expensive for her I will give her the courtesy of reducing the costs of such a trip in the following manner.

Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
TO:Ana L. Callier

A lawsuit will be commenced against you (or the entity on whose behalf you are addressed). A copy of the complaint is attached to this notice. It will be filed in the

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and has not yet been assigned a docket number.

This is not a formal summons or notification from the court, but rather my request that you sign

and return the enclosed waiver of service in order to save the cost of serving you with a judicial

summons and an additional copy of the complaint. The cost of service will be avoided if I receive

a signed copy of the waiver within 20 days after the date designated below as the date on which

this Notice and Request is sent. I enclose a stamped and addressed envelope (or other means of
|
cost-free return) for your use. An extra copy of the waiver is also attached for your records.

If you comply with this request and return the signed waiver, it will be filed with the court and

no summons will be served on you. The action will then proceed as if you had been served on the

date the waiver is filed, except that you will not be obligated to answer the complaint before 60

days from the date designated below as the date on which this notice is sent (or before 90 days

from that date if your address is not in any judicial district of the United States).

If you do not return the signed waiver within the time indicated, I will take appropriate steps to

effect formal service in a manner authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will

then, to the extent authorized by those Rules, ask the court to require you (or the party on

whose behalf you are addressed) to pay the full costs of such service. In that connection, please

read the statement concerning the duty of parties to waive the service of the summons, which is

set forth on the reverse side (or at the foot) of the waiver form.

I affirm that this request is being sent to you on behalf of the plaintiff,

this ___ day of ________, _____.


___________________________
Signature of Plaintiff Pro Se

Waiver of Service of Summons
TO:____(name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)____
I acknowledge receipt of your request that I waive service of a summons in the action of

____(caption of action)____, which is case number ____(docket number)____ in the

United States District Court for the ____(district)____. I have also received a copy of the complaint in the action, two copies of this instrument, and a means by which I can return the signed waiver to you without cost to me.
I agree to save the cost of service of a summons and an additional copy of the complaint in this lawsuit by not requiring that I (or the entity on whose behalf I am acting) be served with judicial process in the manner provided by Rule 4 .
I (or the entity on whose behalf I am acting) will retain all defenses or objections to the lawsuit or to the jurisdiction or venue of the court except for objections based on a defect in the summons or in the service of the summons.
I understand that a judgment may be entered against me (or the party on whose behalf I am acting) if an answer or motion under Rule 12 is not served upon you within 60 days

after ____(date request was sent)____, or within 90 days after that date if the request was sent outside the United States.

All that Mrs. Callier will have to do in order to save the costs of service of summons is to sign the document before a notary public when it arrives at her home in El Paso Texas and return it to the Plaintiff via certified mail return receipt requested and she will then save the costs of service of summons.

That will at least be a small benefit in terms of cost savings. When will I actually send the above to the lady or when willI file the case against her? Well, only time will tell.

Judge Cardone dismisses most of the case

Judge Cardone dismisses most of the Callier's case

Judge Cardone dismissed all of the stalking complaints made by the Calliers in the case of Callier v Bauer yesterday. Her comment in doing so was that 18 U.S.C. 2261A is a criminal statute and must be brought by a U.S. Prosector as a criminal charge. She said that private parties cannot bring criminal complaints against anyone. Then she also dismissed their state claim also based on the same theory. Then she gave them until August 10th to prove the rest of their claims and the actual damages which they claim resulted. They must prove at least $75,000 in damages or she will dismiss all the rest of their complaint.

It is obvious that the judge is certain they can't do that but is giving them a chance to prove their case anyway.

Callier v. Bauer court case

Callier vs Bauer Court case in El Paso, Texas

It appears that E. Normis Debtor thinks that he might be inadvertently teaching me how to fight the case of Callier vs Bauer and as a result of his misguided ego has at least temporarily pulled the plug on his foggy bottom blog. That's not the first time he has done that so we can figure that he will soon enough pull his head out of you know where and open it back up again.

Of course, the thought that I would use anything the little monkey put on his foggy bottom thingy is ludicrous. I don't need any help from the likes of him. Most of it is false and misleading information anyway as everybody who has ever visited his blog instinctively knows after reading more than a paragraph or so.

Interestingly enough, one of the Plaintiffs, Craig Cunningham, has filed several cases in El Paso federal court. Most of them were filed in forma pauperous and were either dismissed by Cunningham or his application to file in forma pauperous was denied by the court and the case dismissed. His latest two have not yet progressed far enough to see how he will fare but we will keep up with them for you.

Callier vs Bauer

Craig Cunningham

E. Normisly Stupid.

E. Normis Debtor recently proposed an E. Normisly Stupid idea that one should challenge the jurisdiction of the Western District of Texas in El Paso in the ongoing case of the plaintiffs Cunningham, Callier and Callier v. Billie E. Bauer of Oklahoma City. Here is his E. Normisly Stupid comments and suggestions.

Friday, June 29, 2007
Billie Bauer intends to file an answer
Nothing in this post should be construed as being legal advice, it is merely my opinion. And, bear in mind, I do not know all of the facts behind the plaintiff's claims.

In reading Creditwrench CEO Billie Bauer's recent posts, it appears his next step in the lawsuit filed against him is to file an answer to the complaint.

That could be a procedural mis-step. There is a matter of personal jurisdiction of the court where the case was filed. By filing an answer, Creditwrench CEO Billie Bauer could essentially be waiving personal jurisdiction.

I would think a better move would be a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under rule Rule 12(b)(2). This would shift the burden to establish personal jurisdiction of the court in the matter to the plaintiff.

Jurisdictional issues involving "cyberspace" are quite complicated.

I think in Creditwrench CEO Billie Bauer's favor is the court's holding in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W. D. Pa. 1997) which in part states:

At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction.

Then again, this is just my opinion........I might be wrong :)

// posted by Creditwrench-thetruth @ 5:34 AM

He's the Monkey, I'm THE WRENCH!

Yes, he just might be as wrong as ever. The first and most important reason that his suggestion is wrong is that when there is a dispute involving a federal question between parties of different states the Court in which the Plaintiff files has jurisdiction under the diversity clause. To make that point more clear, in the case mentioned the court clearly stated it had jurisdiction under the diversity clause thereby refudiating the statements of the plaintiffs about jurisdiction which were clearly wrong and also albeit unknowingly also shot down the theories of the E. Normisly Stupid

He has posted a promise on his foglog that as soon as he quits laughing he will discuss the latest information on the case and why he thinks the defendant made a procedural error. Of course, it is anyone's guess as to how long it will take him to quit laughing and post something more. After all, it took him almost two weeks to quit watching the OPEN and post another obfuscation on his foglog.

Another factor which clearly shows his inability to read and understand court cases is his use of the case Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W. D. Pa. 1997)

He stated the following

I think in Creditwrench CEO Billie Bauer's favor is the court's holding in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W. D. Pa. 1997) which in part states:

What he fails to have read and understood is the most vital element of all in the case which is that the defendant lost miserably. Which is, of course, what he would like me to do in this situation.

Clearly, the E.Normisly Stupid thinks I am as dumb as he is.

Another point made by him in his E. Normis Stupidity is the following also extracted from that same court case:

A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction.

In Zippo the court said that information made available to those who are interested in it by a passive website is not grounds ofr exercise of personal jurisdiction.

Passively posting information on a web site for anyone to grab and do with as they see fit is a far cry from a web site whose information is only available for a high price. And if the seller of that information provides false and misleading information to it's consumers is a very far cry from passively providing information for anyone to grab and use as they see fit.

So exactly how was the information being sold false and misleading? The information itself was not false or misleading because buyers knew exactly what they would be getting for the money they paid. What was false and misleading was claiming that the "service" advertised was perfectly legal. So how was it not legal? The contention was and still is that it is not illegal for the purchaser to be added as an authorized user to the tradelines of people unknown and unrelated to the purchaser for the sole purpose of artificially elevating their credit scores. Well, that much is true as well, but what isn't stated is that if the purchaser uses that falsely elevated score to get credit he otherwise could not qualified for he has presented false and misleading information to a lender and that is an illegal act under federal statutes and carries a stiff penaly. So, no, it isn't illegal to be added to the tradelines of another person unknown to the purchaser. What is illegal is use of what was purchased to artifically elevate ones credit score for the purpose of obtaining new credit that one would not otherwise qualify for.

All of the correct filings in Callier v. Bauer will be posted here as soon as they appear on Pacer.

That way you don't have to rely on the monkey to post whatever portion of the truth he wants you to know about. The monkey never tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And now it would appear that the little monkey has disappeared into a hidey hole somewhere. Gone! Poof! Pulled a disappearing act. He may even have destroyed his whole blog. One very interesting bit of information that I have come up with is what appears to be a name which is Zum Lesen anmelden. All indications are that just might be his real name or maybe one he just dreamed up. Who knows?

Thanks to E. Normis Debtor

I have noted with great interest that E. Normis Debtor has posted his suggestion that the defendant challenge the jurisdiction of the court on his blog. In the referenced case the Plaintiff has expressed great respect for E. Normis Debtor and his opinions.

How the Plaintiff will react to E. Normis Debtor having made suggestions which are apparently intended to reduce the chances of the Plaintiff to prevail remains to be seen.

The outcome of this case will be interesting indeed.

Another interesting aspect of this ongoing lawsuit is that Robert Paisola of Western Capitol Financial and mycollector dot com has expressed an interest in being joined as a 4th plaintiff in the case. He has generously offered to pay half the costs of litigation.

In the event that the current 3 platiffs should decide to accept Paisola's offer would they then be willing to give Paisola half of the expected $1,040,000 proceeds?
It seems unlikely that they would sell a half interest in the proceeds for $125.oo but if the plaintiffs were to accept Paisola's offer that certainly would seem to be a great position for Paisola to be in.

Maybe they would be more amenable if Robbie were to pay $90 for a 1/4 interest in the outcome of the suit and take the chance of walking out with $260,000 each.

If the court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction as suggested by E. Normis Debtor then the current 3 plaintiffs would only have wasted $270. That may be something they might give some consideration due to their obvioiusly great respect for the opinions of E. Normis Debtor. If, on the other hand they let Paisola have a half interest in return for the payment of half the costs and the court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction, they would only be out $180.00.

There is also the possibility that the court will dismiss on other grounds raised by the defendant and if that happens the defendant may decide he ought to file suit on some availably cause of action. Maybe the defendant might sue each of the current plaintiffs for $1,040,000 each. How would Paisola like that? The defendant has good reason to suspect that Paisola would not even respond to the complaint and the defendant would then be awarded judgment against Paisola for the full $1,040,000 plus costs. After all, he didn't respond to other complaints when he was sued so why would he respond to another one?

Of course, the current plaintiffs and Paisola alike believe that they will be victorious but at best they only have a 50-50 chance to win. Either they will or they won't. Only time will tell which way it will go.

P.S.

After a week of watching the Open, E. Normis Debtor finally woke up, rushed over here to see what the latest news might be regarding this case, hunted around Paisola's blogs until he found what I was referring to and finally from deep within the bowels of his nauseous anatomy loudly emitted the following"

Sunday, July 1, 2007
More babble eminating from the pie whole of Paisola
Recently, Western Capital CEO Robert Paisola suggested he be named a co-plaintiff in the case of Callier et al v. Creditwrench. His reasoning? He is a "similarly situated party".

Where Paisola comes up with so much Crappola is beyond me.

This case is not a class action, doesn't qualify as a class action, and will never be a class action.

What Robert Paisola is talking about, but apparently knows nothing about, is the legal principle of permissive joinder.

However, to be joined as a plaintiff in the instant case would require that Western Capital CEO Robert Paisola had a right to relief out of the same occurrance(s) alleged by the current plaintiffs that entitles them to relief. One only need read the complaint to see that Robert Paisola has no colorable claim arising from the actions of Creditwrench that allegedly damaged the named plaintiffs.

// posted by E. Normis Debtor @ 12:57 PM
Sunday, June 17, 2007
More false and misleading information from America's most notorious con-man Robert Paisola
More later....watching the Open :)

// posted by E. Normis Debtor @ 8:40 AM
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

He just couldn't resist the temptation be a spoil sport since it would have been funny as all git-out if Paisola had actually tried to become a co-plaintiff and the current plaintiffs had attempted to let him in.

Patti Pacifico, Robert Paisola, E. Normis Debtor

I was recently doing a spider scan and ran across a Robert Paisola web site where he mentioned an article I wrote on this blog on Wednesday, May 23 in which I used the term jounralistic prostitute in relation to the fact that Patti Pacifico had commented very negatively on my having requested her glowing media press release about Robert Paisola, the Thief-In-Chief of Western Capital Financial. Paisola's site contained an entry in which he soundly denounced my article and provided a link to a page on Pacifico's site that expressed great dismay at the thought that I had bashed her in my article.

So why did I use the term Journalistic Prostitute? The first problem that presents itself is that we need to define the term and that may indeed be a difficult task all by itself when even such a prestigious member of the Ignorati such as E. Normis Debtor who lays claim to be all knowing about almost everything in his Quixotic blogging adventures states that frankly he is not sure what a "journalistic prostitute" is.

Of course, in his quest to seek out and slay all the evil knights of credit repair bounding about the internet while protecting the honor of his fair maiden CCH CONSULTING, another illegal credit repair scam he had to take a few more pokes at Robert Paisola thus proving his similiarity to DON QUIXOTE who, according to Miguel Cervantes, rode about the ancient Spanish landscape jousting with windmills in the night trying to uphold the dignity of his fair Dulcina, a prostitute.

Of course all of us know the definition of the word prostitute but many do not realized that a woman does not legally become a prostitute until she mentions a price she will charge for bestowing her favors upon another and usually without somehow ascertaining whether or not that other person might have some type of social disease.

So now let us attempt to see what is defined by the term Journalistic Prostitute since the word prostitute is modified by the word Journalistic. I tend to think that the phrase journalistic prostitute would refer to anyone who authors an article or recommendation of another for pay without any attempt to determine whether or not those they praise have some sort of social dis-ease.
Doing so usually deteriorates the credibility of the author very rapidly and most especially so on the internet.

I used the term Journalistic Prostitute for the simple reason that I found it strange indeed that someone such as Patti Pacifico who is highly regarded in many internet circles would have authored such glowing recommendations and defenses of the Thief-In-Chief of Western Capital without first having checked him over for his multitude of social-disease(s) such as being a convicted sex offender, having been convicted of fraud, violated his parole and easily spotted for stealing the content of other's work and claiming it to be his own, not to mention the fact that he gives and sells information and advice on subjects which he so obviously knows little or nothing about.

In short, I was merely expressing my sorrow that anyone who claims to maintain high standards for their literary work would lower themselves to the extent of bestowing their recommendations on the likes of Robert Paisola.

I must however applaud Patti for the fact that those pages which once extolled Paisola have now apparently been purged by her at a rate that is surely alarming to the Thief-In-Chief.

Journalistic prostitute
Robert Paisola
Thief-in-chief
Patti Pacifico
E. Normis Debtor
creditwrench
cch consulting