The debt is less than $3,000. Along with the motion to vacate the default judgment I also requested the same regarding the Affidavit.
The “evidence” they submitted is the same in other cases I’ve heard of except usually the Affidavit is attached to the initial petition. Maybe they are thinking to hold onto them now since they are of questionable value, preferring to use them only as a last resort. My failure to appear, though not any fault of mine, was apparently a good time to pull the Affidavit Rabbit out of a hat since no one was around to dispute it.
So the affidavit is the first evidence. The second thing was attached to the petition and it is basically something a grade school student (and I)could do on a computer. It’s a grid, basically, that is on plain white paper, no letterhead to identify where it came from, and in the spaces (about 8 or so) it says: Debt Owed in one space. The rest of the spaces have stuff like a redacted account number, the dollar figure owed, etc. It’s obviously something they made up themselves and it was also addressed in Lauber et al v. Encore, Midland et al CV-10-5132-LRS, an ongoing class action suit in Washington state which relies on and frequently refers to Midland Funding LLC v. Brent, 644 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ohio 2009).
They clearly have nothing as evidence and further they haven’t denied my allegations of fraud, intent to deceive and mislead the court, they never answered my assertions that they have no standing and have shown no contractual relationship, and no one said one word about my answers to interrogatories being unacceptable.
I can’t see how it can be perceived as anything other than malicious prosecution.
Mister Super Litigator wrote on his motion for continuance (should have been called motion to continue stalling) that he wasn’t doing it to frustrate the case but obviously he was as he did manage to materialize on the scheduled date.
They are like pit bulls, powerful jaws that refuse to let go. In this case they are pit bully’s. Very little, other than that they have my correct name and address, of what they said is true and its almost all b.s. meant to deceive.
The FDCPA prohibits the use of “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” FDCPA § 1692e. Specifically at issue here is the prohibition of “[t]he use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.” § 1692e(10). Section 1692k of the statute provides for a remedy of either actual damages or strict liability, which allows consumers to recover statutory damages for violations of the act without proving actual damages suffered. Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592 (6th Cir.2009); FDCPA 1692k. Debt collectors, as explained infra IV.A.4., are afforded a defense of bona fide error if they can show the violation happened without intent to mislead and procedures have been adopted to avoid errors. FDCPA § 1692k(c).
It would be difficult to see how Midland, in light of its previous brushes with the court about their affidavits and so forth, did not know this affidavit was deceitful.
These attorneys are college-educated people and they surely know when someone has been directed, as a part of their job, to sign affidavits wherein they may not even know the definitions involved, that the document is based on intent to deceive and mislead and trick the court. The sudden materialization of the affidavit after previously been invisible/unknown just in the nick of time on judgment day is evidence of intentions to deceive the court.
They also know, being attorneys, that knowingly presenting false evidence or evidence meant to deceive/mislead the court is fraud.
They know what they are doing is against the law and yet they arrogantly do so anyway, day after day, not just to me but to thousands and thousands more people from coast to coast. There is no shortage of victims to the Midland Encore group.