Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Click Here

National Check Bureau Answers to Discovery - The Credit Info Center Forums - http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showth...
In this answer, the NCB tries to circumvent questions and interfere with or defeat the discovery effort. The alleged debtor wants to get out of the debt. The collection agent bought the debt and now wants to get a judgment because the alleged debtor did pay properly. But the alleged debtor shows a sly manner by presenting a request for admissions and interrogatories in an effort to discover fraud or dishonesty on the part of the collection agent. But the agent sidesteps, objects, and sometimes refuses to answer. You should study the manner in which the collection agent attorney does this and prepare yourself to face similar answers in your debt case. The alleged debtor now must attack the collection agent and ask the judge to order the the agent to explain why he should not be cited for contempt, since the agent clearly intended to avoid and evade discovery, thus making the proceedings unfairly balanced against the alleged debtor. This is no trivial task. Read the rules of evidence and discovery for your state. Also look at the questions and admissions efforts and try to understand the point the alleged debtor makes in them.
The alleged debtor explained the situation like this:
Here is an outline of this case.
NCB filed a complaint as an assignee of Citibank. The reality is NCB is not the assignee of Citbank they are the assignee of Unifund who is the assignee of Citibank.
I filed an answer basically saying that any credit card activity that is in my name was over 4 years ago and that was in Nevada so the alleged debt was beyond SOL. In addition NCB did not have a license as a collection agency in Illinois.
NCB presented me with Interrogatories and Admissions asking me to admit that my answers were without merit, etc. I responded mostly with I don't have any records from 5 years ago so denied all. Details are on credit boards, search for author lvflyer.
NCB filed motion to strike my answers and affirmative defenses.
I sent them Discovery
They responded with legal snares.
Now I either file answer to their motion to strike or request leave to amend answers. Taking advice from others on boards I did make some errors on my answers so I need to correct them. I've since requested information from Citibank proving the last activity date and m address at the time of that activity.
Illinois has a borowing statute that requires both parties to not be residents of Illinois at the time of cause of action of original default and the SOl in Nevada is 4 years for debt not founded on instrument in writing. I can't find any cas law that defines credit card as a debt not founded on an instrument in writing. Whychat's web site said 3 years and that is what I used in my answers. Date of last activity according to NCB records is 5/01 which clearly puts it beyond SOL in Nevada which is borrowed in Illinois. NCB had that information available at the time they filed the lawsuit. I advised them it was time-barred at the time of the filing of my answers. It is my understanding that they should have dropped it then but didn't so are in violation of Federal Act. NCB also is not legal in Illinois. There are several of us developing a class action against NCB.
By the way it is my understanding that Unifund was sued in a class action in Illinois and lost. That is the reason I suspect that they are suing under NCB.
I can't afford an attorney so my only hope is to find an attorney that can see the violations in this case and can see their fees will be awarded.
Seems to me that it all depends on the prejudices of the judge.
Here is the text:
----------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 10TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF P National Check Bureau, Inc.10625 Techwoods CircleCincinnati, Ohio 45242,PlaintiffVS.Defendant )))))))))))) Case No.: No. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 213, 214, and 216 Plaintiff, National Check Bureau, Inc. ("NCB"), by and through counsel, hereby submits its written responses to Defendant's Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents (collectively, the "Discovery Requests").
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. NCB generally objects to all of Defendant's Discovery Requests to the extent that the requests call for information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. To the extent that a Request calls for privileged documents, NCB objects and will not produce such documents. NCB will produce a privilege log regarding any privileged and/or protected discoverable information. 2. To the extent the NCB, pursuant to any request by Defendant, produces a document which any party may later claim is privileged or which any party characterizes as privileged, it is understood that such production does not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. 3. NCB objects to Defendant's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek to impose any obligation on NCB, whether by response, production, supplementation, identification of documents or persons, or otherwise, which exceeds NCB's responsibility under the Illinois Supreme court Rules and/or Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. NCB will be guided solely by the Illinois Supreme Court Rules and/or Illinois Code of Civil Procedure in responding to Defendant's Discovery Requests. 4. NCB makes no incidental or implied admissions of fact in its Responses below. Only those admissions expressly made are intended. 5. The fact that NCB has answered all or part of, or produced documents pursuant to, and Discovery Request, is not intended and shall not be construed as a waiver by NCB of all or any part of any and all objection to the admissibility of same at trial. 6. NCB objects to the Discovery Requests and related instructions to the extent that they seek information from individuals and other sources whose knowledge and information is not presently known by NCB. Moreover, NCB objects to Defendant's Discovery Requests to the extent that they attempt to compel NCB to answer the Discovery Requests on behalf of separate and autonomous person(s) and/or business entity(s) that are not parties to the above-captioned action. NCB's responses to the Discovery Requests are based upon information presently available to it, and are made solely on behalf of NCB. 7. NCB objects to Defendant's Discovery Requests to the extent that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8. NCB's responses to the Discovery Requests are made without prejudice to its right to amend and/or supplement its responses in light of facts later learned or documents later obtained.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
1. State your company name, address, phone number, federal tax ID number, date of incorporation, owner of corporation, and list of officers of the corporation. OBJECTION: Irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as to the federal tax ID number, date of incorporation, owner of corporation, and list of officers of the corporation. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, National Check Bureau, Inc., 10625 Techwoods Circle, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242. Telephone (800) 316-1857 or (513) 489-7121.
2. Unifund stamp is on Plaintiff's exhibit A of complaint. What is your relationship with Unifund and what is significance of the date July 18, 2002 noted on the same exhibit? OBJECTION: Seeks information not in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objections or the General Objections. Unifund CCR Partners acquired this account from the original creditor and Plaintiff subsequently acquired it from Unifund CCR Partners.
3. For each retained and non-retained expert witness who you anticipate may testify at trial, state their names, addresses, phone numbers, current employers' names, current employers' addresses and current employers' phone numbers, their relationship to the case, the subject matter on which the experts are expected to testify, the conclusions and opinions of the experts and the basis therefore, and describe the qualifications of the experts and attach their curriculum vitae. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff does not anticipate calling any expert witnesses at this time. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to supplement this response.
4. Defendant was contacted by American Mediation and Alternative Resolution and Financial Growth Foundation, Inc. concerning this case prior to any contact by Plaintiff with Defendant. There is strong evidence to suggest a relationship exists or did exist between the Plaintiff and these firms. What is the relationship between you and these firms? What communication have you had with them in written or oral form? OBJECTION: Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, attorney work product. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, Plaintiff has no relationship whatsoever with either entity named in this Interrogatory. Neither entity has contacted Plaintiff with respect to Defendant, his account, or the instant case. It is Plaintiff's general experience that both named entities represent debtors in negotiations with Plaintiff and this not only are unrelated to Plaintiff but also typically oppose Plaintiff in negotiations. Upon information and belief, it is Plaintiff's understanding that entities such as those named locate potential clients in part by searching the court records for recent filings.
5. How does National Check Bureau classify its business with Dunn & Bradstreet, professional directories, phone listings, tax returns, etc? ie. Collection Agency OBJECTION: Irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, ample opportunity to discover.
6. What is National Check Bureau corporation's current standing within the states of Ohio and Illinois? OBJECTION: Irrelevant RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, Plaintiff is in good standing in both the states of Ohio and Illinois.
7. By what statutes are you basing your eligibility to sue legally within the state of Illinois? OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion
8. Do you own the alleged debt? If not then who does? RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, yes.
9. What was the purchase price for the alleged debt? OBJECTION: Irrelevant; trade secret; proprietary information; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10. Who at your firm has original knowledge of the alleged debt and who can provide a complete accounting of the alleged debt? OBJECTION: Vague and unclear. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, Plaintiff is ass assignee of the original creditor. The term "original knowledge" is undefined and unclear and, as such, Plaintiff cannot answer this question without further clarification.
11. Do you have an agreement signed by both parties defining a written contract between you and Defendant? RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff is an assignee of the original creditor with whom Defendant contracted. For original creditor's signature, see page 9 of card member agreement, attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint. For Defendant's signature, see signed application previously provided to Defendant. See also page 1 of card member agreement, which states "This Agreement is binding on you unless you cancel your account within 30 days after receiving the card and you have not used or authorized use of your account."
12. What is the date of the last on-time payment of the alleged debt? OBJECTION: Irrelevant; seeks information not in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, upon information and belief, the last activity on the account occurred on 05/22/2001. Plaintiff has no information at this time as to whether such activity was a charge or a payment and, if a payment, whether it was on time. Plaintiff has requested copies of credit card statements from the original creditor and will provide them upon receipt.
13. What was the residence of the Defendant or the address the statement was mailed on the date of the last on-time payment for the alleged debt? OBJECTION: Vague and unclear; irrelevant; seeks information not in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff; ample opportunity to discover. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Defendant indicated in his discovery responses that he either resided or received mail at 4070 W. Martin, Las Vegas NV from 1998-2004. Plaintiff cannot attest to the veracity of such response and has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory.
14. What was your address at the time of the last on-time payment of the alleged debt? OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, see Response to Interrogatory No. 12. Plaintiff further states that at all times relevant to this case, it has resided in the state of Ohio.
15. When did you first make contact with Defendant regarding this alleged debt? RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff sent Defendant a Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on or about November 11, 2004.
16. Who is your attorney representing this case in Peoria Illinois? When was the court and the Defendant notified of this person prior to the first scheduled hearing on September 13, 2005? OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, Plaintiff's appearance counsel is Peggy Jans.
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1. Admit that your complaint against Defendant is without merit and was filed Illegally. OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216 RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny.
2. Admit that you received Defendant's sworn statement in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 216 in a timely manner to your interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for documents mailed on November 21, 2005. OBJECTION: Irrelevant; calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, Plaintiff admits that it received Defendant's response to interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for documents. Plaintiff cannot truthfully admit or deny the remainder of the request as it calls for a legal conclusion and therefore is not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216.
3. Admit that neither Defendant nor Plaintiff were residents of Illinois at time of cause of action for the alleged debt. OBJECTION: Irrelevant; vague and unclear; ample opportunity to discover. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection and General Objections, Plaintiff admits that it is not a resident of Illinois. Plaintiff cannot admit or deny the remainder of the Request as it calls for information not within Plaintiff's possession, custody or control. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 13
4. Admit that neither Defendant nor Plaintiff were residents of Illinois at time of last on-time payment to original creditor of the alleged debt. OBJECTION: Irrelevant; seeks information not within the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff; ample opportunity to discover. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, Plaintiff admits that it is not a resident of Illinois. Plaintiff cannot truthfully admit or deny the remainder of the Request as it calls for information not within Plaintiff's possession, custody or control. See also Responses to Interrogatories No. 12 and 13.
5. Admit that time barred statutes are based on the date where cause of action occurs, which is when the original creditor can file suit. OBJECTION: Vague and unclear; calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
6. Admit that National Check Bureau, its agents, or affiliates made no contact with Defendant prior to filing a lawsuit. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, deny.
7. Admit that National Check Bureau, its agents, or affiliates notified Financial Growth Foundation, Inc. of pending lawsuit with Defendant in order to encourage settlement. OBJECTION: Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; irrelevant. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, deny.
8. Admit that National Check Bureau, its agents, or affiliates notified American Mediation and Alternative Resolution of pending lawsuit with Defendant in order to encourage settlement. OBJECTION: Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; irrelevant. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, deny.
9. Admit National Check Bureau does not have a written, signed, contract or agreement with Defendant for this alleged debt. OBJECTION: Irrelevant RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, deny. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 11
10. Admit that National Check Bureau does not have sufficient records that provide just cause to file a lawsuit against the Defendant. OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny.
11. Admit that your lawsuit is fraudulent according to the Illinois Statutes of Fraud. OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216 RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny.
12. Admit that every statement contained in Defendant's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims are true and correct. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny.
13. Admit that Defendant did not receive or respond to a validation letter from National Check Bureau. OBJECTION: Ample opportunity to discover; seeks information not within the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff admits that Defendant did not respond to the validation letter. Plaintiff denies for want of knowledge the remainder of such Request and affirmatively states that it sent a validation letter to Defendant.
14. Admit that Defendant was a resident of Nevada at the time of cause of action on the alleged debt. OBJECTION: Ample opportunity to discover; seeks information not within the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff; vague and unclear; irrelevant. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff cannot truthfully admit or deny as such information in not within Plaintiff's possession, custody or control. See also Response to Interrogatory No. 13.
15. Admit the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does require that a validation letter is received by Defendant and the burden of proof of delivery is on the Plaintiff. OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or the General Objections, deny. See 15 USC 1692g. which states "Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, sent the consumer a written notice….." (emphasis added) See also Mahon V. Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1999) ("A debt collector need not establish actual receipt by the debtor. Section 1692g(a) explicitly states that a Notice must be sent…. Nowhere does the statute require receipt for the Notice.")
16. Admit that Federal Truth in Lending Act in Definitions and rules of construction defines credit card debt as open accounts. OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny. Plaintiff further states that it is not a "creditor" as such term is defined in the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and, as such, TILA does not apply in this case. See Neff v. Capital Acquisitions & Management co., 352 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir. 2003). Regulation Z. §226.2.
17. Admit that a written contract contains the signature of both parties and spells out unchanging terms of the agreement, unlike a credit card that is a open credit plan with constantly changing terms and is not signed by both parties. OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny.
18. Admit that National Check Bureau received a letter from Defendant disputing the alleged debt on or about October 14, 2005 which advised National Check Bureau that any further attempt to collect on this alleged debt is fraudulent and subject to legal action by Defendant. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff admits that it received an undated letter from Defendant on or about October 18, 2005, clearly more than 30 days after the date it sent Defendant the Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act referred to in Response to Interrogatory No. 15.
19. Admit the last payment Defendant made on this alleged debt was between July 2000 and October 2000, and thus being beyond Nevada's Statute of Limitations for action on this type of account. OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216; seeks information not within the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny. See Response to Interrogatory No. 12.
20. Admit that Illinois Statutes dictate that Nevada's Statute of Limitations apply in this case since both parties were not residents of Illinois at the time of cause of action. OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, deny.
21. Admit the documents and information showing that the Defendant was a resident of Nevada at the time of cause of action was available from Citibank according to law prior to filing of the complaint by Plaintiff. OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls for a legal conclusion; not a request for admission of fact pursuant to Rule 216. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff cannot truthfully admit or deny as request calls for information not within Plaintiff's possession, custody or control.
22. Admit that National Check Bureau has no original statements from Citibank showing date of last payment and address of Defendant at time of cause of action. OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; vague and unclear; ample opportunity to discover. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff admits that it has no original statements because Plaintiff is informed and believes that the original statements were sent to Defendant as monthly credit card statements. Plaintiff further states that it has requested copies of credit card statements from Citibank and will provide such upon receipt.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1. The alleged credit application bearing the plaintiff's signature;
OBJECTION: Irrelevant RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, a copy or the original application bearing Defendant's signature was forwarded to Defendant by letter dated January 30, 2006. Plaintiff is an assignee of the original creditor and therefore was not a party to the original contract.
2. The alleged credit agreement that states interest rate, grace period, terms of repayment, et cetera; specific to Defendant's account. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, see Exhibit A to Complaint and application. 3. Itemized statements or credit card statements that demonstrate how the alleged amount owed was calculated; OBJECTION: Seeks information not within the possession, custody fo control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff has requested copies of credit card statements from the original creditor and will provide such upon receipt.
4. A contract, agreement, assignment, or other means demonstrating that National Check Bureau had the authority and capacity, and was legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, see attached Bill of Sale and Affidavit and assignment. See also National Check Bureau v. Cody, attached.
5. Letter(s) sent to Defendant by National Check Bureau, demonstrating an attempt to collect on the alleged debt. RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, see Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and pleadings in this matter. See also correspondence dated January 30, 2006, previously sent to Defendant with copy of the application for the account.
6. A notarized statement, if presently existing or otherwise, by a person with original knowledge of the alleged debt, as it was constituted, and who can testify, or be so interrogated in a deposition, that the alleged debt was incurred legally; OBJECTION: Vague and unclear; seeks information not is possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff has no documents responsive to such request and it appears that such request should be directed to the original creditor. The original creditor's contact information is Citibank, 100 Citibank Drive, PO Box 769004, San Antonio, TX 78245-9004 7. Any and all further documents that you believe establish that Defendant had an outstanding account or debt related to this case. OBJECTION: Unduly broad and burdensome; seeks documentation not in possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, see Exhibit A to Complaint; signed application previously provided to Defendant; receipt of account information electronically transmitted by the original creditor. See also Defendant's discovery responses and pleadings in this case. Plaintiff has requested copies of credit card statements from the original creditor and will provide such upon receipt.
8. Any further documentation, beyond what has been previously requested, that clearly establishes Defendant's liability and/or responsibility to the alleged debt; OBJECTION: Cumulative and duplicative. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, see Objection and Response to Request for Production No. 7, which are expressly incorporated herein by reference.
9. Any and all written communication regarding the reporting of the alleged account to any credit reporting agency, as well as Plaintiff's accessing of Defendant's credit report(s). OBJECTION: Irrelevant; seeks documents not within the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; vague and unclear. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, none. Plaintiff has not reported information regarding Defendant's account to any credit reporting agency.
10. Any and all communications explaining why Plaintiff reported the alleged debt to any credit reporting agency, as well as obtaining Defendant's credit report(s); OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; vague and unclear. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff has not reported information regarding Defendant's account to any credit reporting agency.
11. Any and all credit report(s) Plaintiff obtained from any credit reporting agency concerning the Defendant OBJECTION: Irrelevant; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; ample opportunity to discover. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, none.
12. Any and all notes, memoranda, or likewise, be they handwritten, computerized, or typed, regularly kept in the normal transaction and business of collecting debts, that relate to the Defendant. OBJECTION: Attorney work product; proprietary information; trade secret; irrelevant.
13. The Plaintiff's Articles of Incorporation RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, see attached.
14. Attach hereto copies of each and every document that you intend on introducing at the trial of this action RESPONSE: Without waiving the General Objections, see documents previously referenced in these responses. See also attached report of account ledger. Plaintiff has requested credit card statements from the original creditor and will provide copies of such upon receipt. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.
15. Produce legible copies of any checks, check book log records, any money order receipts, wire transfers, checks by phone, or any other documents related to any method or payment and any other documentation evidencing payment defendant made on the alleged debt which is the subject matter of the pleadings in this case. OBJECTION: Seeks documents not in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff, ample opportunity to discover. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, none. See also attached report of account ledger.
16. Provide an itemized statement of account to include all charges, interest, fees, credits, and payments along with the date of each item beginning from when the alleged account was in default. OBJECTION: Seeks documents not in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff has requested statements from the original creditor and will provide copies upon receipt. ----------
One correspondent commented:
Was this self-prepared? Many of the interrogatorries and admissions could be viewed as antagonistic. I mean really...you expected them to admit to violating the Statutes of Fraud?
The document production appears to be appropriate responses, with the exception of #12. Call histories and collection notes are not priviledged and must be produced. Internal procedure handbooks and the like are also not priviledged and must be produced.
As for Statute of Limitaitons, which it appears you are calling into question, you must use Illinois, not Nevada. The SoL used is the one in which the court resides. Illinois courts are not permitted to consider the SoL of another State because of jurisdictional and procedureal boundaries. IL SoL on credit cards is 5 years. If you are insise that, don't bother with an SoL defense...You aren't in Nevada so their SoL doesn't apply to your court proceeding.
Response 18 is BS and they know it. *There is no 30 day timer on disputes*, only on debt validation which is nothing more than them getting a statement from the OC confirming the amount to be collected and forwarding it on to the consumer. If, at the time they received your October 2005 letter, the details of the dispute were accurate (such as the amount or time-barred), then they would be in violation of the FDCPA for continuing collections without addressing the issue at hand.
3. Itemized statements or credit card statements that demonstrate how the alleged amount owed was calculated; OBJECTION: Seeks information not within the possession, custody fo control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, Plaintiff has requested copies of credit card statements from the original creditor and will provide such upon receipt.
They do not have statements.
12. What is the date of the last on-time payment of the alleged debt? OBJECTION: Irrelevant; seeks information not in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Without waiving such objection or General Objections, upon information and belief, the last activity on the account occurred on 05/22/2001. Plaintiff has no information at this time as to whether such activity was a charge or a payment and, if a payment, whether it was on time. Plaintiff has requested copies of credit card statements from the original creditor and will provide them upon receipt.
If they do not know what payments were made, how can they be sure what the balance is? How can they be sure that the DOFD as reported to the CRA is accurate?
9. What was the purchase price for the alleged debt? OBJECTION: Irrelevant; trade secret; proprietary information; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Are you trying to prove unjust enrichment?
The Fields v Wilber Law Firm case is applicable here. They need to show how the balance was calculated. If not, how can we even begin to show what you owe?
Unifund CCR rarely is actually prepared to sue. In cases such as this one, they're aim is for a Default as most debtors tend to fold after being served a summons. When challenged in the Interrogatory phase, Unifund generally files a request for continuance in order to obtain supporting evidence such the cc agreement, signed applications and the entire transcript of statements from the OC detailing payments, dates and charges. Further, they attempt to obtain sworn affidavits from the OC or even go so far as to pay a representative of the OC to testify to the accuracy of the account. They prevail most of the time in court, but it is of course up to a judge to decide whether the preponderance of evidence they have presented is convincing enough. You have to realize that Unifund CCR partners are snakes and they have a lot of experience doing what they do, which is, acquiring uncollectable debt for virtually nothing then hunting-down and suing the debtor for the entire obligation plus fees, etc.
Another reviewer suggested this: http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showth...

5 comments:

debt consolidation said...

Debt consolidation is one of the most common methods of handling debt issues. There are many debt consolidation companies out in the market whose expertise can guide in the debt consolidation process.

Anonymous said...

David George Rosenberg, Unifund CCR Partners LLC founder, chairman and chief executive officer
Residence:
2349 Grandin Road (at the corner of Corbin)
Cincinnati, Ohio
45208
Home Phone: (513) 321-7190
House is across the street from the Cincinnati Country Club 12th tee.
The three-story stucco house has 16 rooms (six bedrooms and nine bathrooms). The house sits on 3.87 acres and has two guest apartments, a pool, a pool house and what is described as a “rose garden non pareil.” There is garage space for six cars. Check it out on Google Earth.
drosenberg@unifund.com
mrdgr@redconnect.net
Born: 1965 - Izmir Turkey
Unmarried
Lives with Richard Shenk (513) 871-0043 & Betty Ann Shenk (513) 321-0010
All three are heavily involved with the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati: They have summer parties for teens at the house.
Associates: Douglas A. Mallon, Jeffery W. Adams, Jeffery L. Jensen & Jon Alan Bader.
Owns a Challenger 604 Private jet.
All this information is freely available on the internet, just collected in one place here.
If anybody has any more information about this guy, put it on an (anti)Unifund blog.

Anonymous said...

Unifund is actually Unifund CCR Partners, a trademark registered in Ohio. The trademark is owned by Unifund CCR Partners, a general partnership registered in Delaware. The general partnership here is between Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc. registered in Ohio, and ZB Limited Partners, a general partnership registered in Delaware. I am still working on just exactly who are the ZB partners, but it looks like they have no corporate protection. Maybe they do not need any because ZB is short for Zurich (Swiss) Bank! David G. Rosenberg, you bad boy. You or your ZB buddies haven't flown out of Lunken Field on a private jet to an offshore destination with more than $10,000 in cash and bonds on board, have you? A certain Federal Prosecutor wants to know.

Anonymous said...

Unifund CCR Partners is owned ZB Limited Partners registered in Delaware. ZB is short for Zises Brothes: Jay H.Zesis, Seymour W. Zesis & Selig A Zesis. Jay Zesis: (pronounced "zee-sees"), a Likud funder with his wife Nancy (now Cathy). As of 2000, Jay was President of "Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces in the United States."
Jay Zises and his brother Selig founded Integrated Resources, a hyper-leveraged tax shelter. The Zises debt pyramid blew out in 1989, defaulting on $955 million. The scheme was financed by Drexel Burnham Lambert's junk-bond kingpin Michael Milken and his family, and by those backing Milken, including Zises' former boss Saul Steinberg, and executives of Carl Lindner's dope-running United Fruit/Chiquita Banana. A Federal judge ruling on a lawsuit against Integrated said, "This case arises from the ashes of what is regarded by some as the most spectacular scam of the 1980s."
Milken and others were jailed, but the Zises brothers escaped with a fortune, bought out by Milken's cousin Stanley Zax shortly before Milken was indicted and Integrated collapsed.
Jay Zises created the Roundtable Political Action Committee, a U.S. election campaign-financing arm of the Milken clique, operating from Integrated's New York office. His brother Seymour Zises was president of the coordinating "National PAC," which operated from Washington. Run in tandem with AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), these are the PACs which established, in America, the pattern of dirty-money election financing which rules Israel today.
Contributors to Jay Zises' Roundtable included members of the Meshulam Riklis family. Riklis, a mobster go-between for dope-runner Robert Vesco, Vesco's lawyer Kenneth Bialkin, and the Milken group, was Ariel Sharon's personal financial angel. For years, the Zesis Brothers flew an unmarked 737 tail number N4529W, all white with a red stripe. The planes’ owners, “American Leasing Investors V-A” was a partnership between Selig A. Zises, Jay H. Zises, and Arthur H. Goldberg, a collection of New York financers. Selig Zises was the chairman of Integrated Resources, Inc., a financial services company known for creating tax shelters and a part of junk-bond king Michael Milken’s “daisy-chain” of clients. When Milken’s pyramid scheme fell apart in the late 1980s, the Zises brothers left Integrated Resources. A few months later the company defaulted on its loans and collapsed. In 1991, Goldberg and the Zises brothers cancelled their lease with EG&G Special Projects, and ownership of the plane changed to the First Security Bank of Utah. EG&G in turn began leasing the plane from the bank. On December 7, 1995, First Security Bank sold the aircraft to the Department of the Air Force. EG&G Special Projects still operates the aircraft.
In recent years, Jay Zises has been the president of “Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces,” a close friend of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and a major contributor to Senator Joseph Lieberman, George Bush, the Republican National Committee, and to the Club for Growth. His brother Selig Zises is now a major investor in Xenonics – a company that sells lighting systems and night vision equipment to the military and whose stock value increased many times over with the US invasion of Iraq. Selig maintains intimate ties to Washington, contributing large amounts of money to both Democratic and Republican candidates.

Anonymous said...

The transfer of Unifund proceeds from:Unifund CCR Partners,ZB Limited Partnership,ZB Linited Partners,ZB/CCR, Inc. andCredit Card Receivables Fund, Inc toAssociated Capital LP,A Cap, Inc., andAssociated Capital Offshore/L/P is managed at the offices of the Zises Brothers Jay & Selig at:767 3rd Ave Fl 16
New York, New York USA 10017-9017http://www.superpages.com/bp/New-York-NY/ACAP-Inc-L2065062531.htm. This Schedule 13G is being filed jointly by
Associated Capital, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership ("Associated"), its general partner, A
Cap, Inc., a New York Corporation ("A Cap"), Jay H.
Zises, the President and a director of A Cap, Selig
A. Zises, Vice President, Treasurer and a director of
A Cap, Nancy J. Frankel-Zises, a director, Vice
President and Secretary and the sole stockholder of A
Cap, and Associated Capital Offshore, L.P., a Cayman
Islands limited partnership ("Associated Offshore").
Associated, A Cap, Jay H. Zises, Selig A. Zises,
Nancy J. Frankel-Zises and Associated Offshore are
hereinafter sometime referred to collectively as the
"Reporting Persons". The business address of
Associated Offshore is c/o Goldman Sachs (Cayman)
Trust, Limited, P.O. Box 896, George Town, Grand
Cayman, Cayman Islands, British West Indies. The
business address of each other Reporting Person is
477 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, New York,
10022. Jay H. Zises, Selig A. Zises and Nancy J.
Frankel-Zises are each United States citizens.