Author Topic: Fake invoice from CA after requesting Validation  (Read 477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8485
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: Fake invoice from CA after requesting Validation
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2017 10:33:42 PM »
Your analysis, FlyingIFR, misses one key element that is necessary in a court of law:  The evidence must be admissible.

Evidence is constrained by the Rules of Evidence in the litigants jurisdiction.  Hear-say evidence is not admissible, and parole evidence can be both challenged and excluded.

The question of the evidence that a poster might have is legitimate since a litigant's evidence needs to get over a very well established bar.  The OP needs to start thinking how the "evidence" that he has meets the accepted standard.

Going back to the OP's posts, the evidence being offered in Court would be what the Debt Collector proffered to the OP/Plaintiff as VOD - it would not be hearsay, it would be first-hand evidence of the attempt to pass of something as what it was not. Hearsay is when "A" says ""B" told me that "C" said....." Not "This is what "A" sent to me." If the Collector can rebut the prima facie evidence of misrepresentation by producing someone from the OC who will admit that they don't know the real name of their company, then so be it.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 10408
Re: Fake invoice from CA after requesting Validation
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2017 10:50:48 PM »
The the comment that it was fraudulent is a conclusion and inadmissible.  There is not even prima facie evidence that it is.

We're back at the argument on "obtained by from the original creditor" requirement of the law which has been remarkable in its lack of meaningful case law.

There will be the presumption that the collector DID obtain the information from the original creditor, and it is the debtor's task to rebut that presumption...WITH EVIDENCE...in all of what "evidence" means.



« Last Edit: October 28, 2017 10:59:15 PM by CleaningUp »

kilgorelilly

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9
Re: Fake invoice from CA after requesting Validation
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2017 04:04:10 AM »
I want to thank everyone for your thoughtful insight. I've responded to the CA with a letter CMRR that basically says consider this account still in dispute. I have also reached out to the OC requesting their records. I am interested to find out what I get in return.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8485
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: Fake invoice from CA after requesting Validation
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2017 07:23:09 AM »
The the comment that it was fraudulent is a conclusion and inadmissible.  There is not even prima facie evidence that it is.

Both of these statements are matters for the trial judge to decide based on what is presented. Therefore, no part of the OP's argument should be left unstated.

Quote
We're back at the argument on "obtained by from the original creditor" requirement of the law which has been remarkable in its lack of meaningful case law.

We agree on this.

Quote
There will be the presumption that the collector DID obtain the information from the original creditor, and it is the debtor's task to rebut that presumption...WITH EVIDENCE...in all of what "evidence" means.

As I stated before, a document that doesn't even correctly state the name of the OC would ipso facto be prima facie evidence that the document in question did not come from the OC. The presumption would be that employees of the OC would know the name of the OC. The rest falls under the legal phrase "res ipsa loquitor" - the matter (in this case the documentation) speaks for itself.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)