Author Topic: Question about pending Midland law suit  (Read 3145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5717
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #120 on: Yesterday at 08:34:03 PM »
Standard stuff, Midland swearing to the accuracy of their own records. Big deal. They reference a person with knowledge (vague) who supposedly transmitted the records to Midland. Who is it? That's one way to attack this.

The other way is to look at the Brent v. Midland case and the exhibits Howucantoo posted. Sometimes she actually gets it right. Oh, I'll pay for that. Seems Midland has no employees worth mentioning. Hmmm.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #121 on: Yesterday at 08:38:05 PM »
And here are false affidavits of Midland from Brent vs Midland funding.

See if it resembles any of these.

The affidavits in the first link were not offered in Brent.  They're from Lauber v. Encore.  Where is the court ruling on the Lauber affidavits?

I think you're placing too much emphasis on an OH District Court ruling without the considering the details of that ruling.

howucantoo

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #122 on: Yesterday at 09:10:24 PM »
The affidavits in the first link were not offered in Brent.  They're from Lauber v. Encore.  Where is the court ruling on the Lauber affidavits?

I think you're placing too much emphasis on an OH District Court ruling without the considering the details of that ruling.

BELLE ;

The affidavits I posted was for the OP's INFORMATION only. Not case laws or stuff you like to argue about.

Now take your inquiring mind and entertain yourself somewhere else !
I am not an attorney, just  type" A" personality.
If you need legal help, you should seek legal counsel.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #123 on: Yesterday at 09:47:19 PM »
BELLE ;

The affidavits I posted was for the OP's INFORMATION only. Not case laws or stuff you like to argue about.

Now take your inquiring mind and entertain yourself somewhere else !

Not so fast. 

You titled your link as "false affidavits from Brent vs. Midland Funding".   The OP specifically asked you "How were these proven to be false?"  and you have not responded to that question.

My comment about about Lauber and a court ruling was based upon both your post and the OP's question.

Your response to me indicates that the copies of the affidavits you provided were not ruled upon by a court as false, and you did not inform the OP of that fact.  Unless a court issued a ruling that the affidavits provided by you were false, the title of your link is misleading.

I do agree that Midland affidavits are false, but our opinion makes no difference to a court.  The OP wanted specifics.

In regard to Brent, look at the details of the ruling.  Is that so hard to do?  From what I can tell, the affidavits in your link do not contain certain verbage that was addressed in that ruling.

Do not tell me to take my "inquiring mind" elsewhere when my comments and questions are relevant.  I assure you that I was not in the least entertained by your misleading implication.  If you can't provide an answer to questions, just say so.


howucantoo

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 09:54:02 PM »
Not so fast. 

You titled your link as "false affidavits from Brent vs. Midland Funding".   The OP specifically asked you "How were these proven to be false?"  and you have not responded to that question.

My comment about about Lauber and a court ruling was based upon both your post and the OP's question.

Your response to me indicates that the copies of the affidavits you provided were not ruled upon by a court as false, and you did not inform the OP of that fact.  Unless a court issued a ruling that the affidavits provided by you were false, the title of your link is misleading.

I do agree that Midland affidavits are false, but our opinion makes no difference to a court.  The OP wanted specifics.

In regard to Brent, look at the details of the ruling.  Is that so hard to do?  From what I can tell, the affidavits in your link do not contain certain verbage that was addressed in that ruling.

Do not tell me to take my "inquiring mind" elsewhere when my comments and questions are relevant.  I assure you that I was not in the least entertained by your misleading implication.  If you can't provide an answer to questions, just say so.

No one called your name to chime in here.

We were discussing affidavits not genies or Bellebuttons. I posted the sample of affidavits for comparison, go back and read.

So we'll give you the medal for knowing it all. Okay ? Move on !
I am not an attorney, just  type" A" personality.
If you need legal help, you should seek legal counsel.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #125 on: Yesterday at 10:45:53 PM »
No one called your name to chime in here.

We were discussing affidavits not genies or Bellebuttons. I posted the sample of affidavits for comparison, go back and read.

So we'll give you the medal for knowing it all. Okay ? Move on !

As far as I can tell, no one called your name to chime in on this thread either.  My question was about copies of affidavits provided by YOU which I would assume that you would consider to be relevant.   You did not answer the OP's question as to how those affidavits were proven to be false.  That's on you.

In addition, the OP is from TX.   Brent is an OH lawsuit in a federal court.   The affidavits you provided under "false affidavits  of Midland Funding" are not connected to Brent.

In no way have I claimed to "know it all".  You are the one who brought up the affidavits from another lawsuit.   I would think that by doing so, you'd be able to inform the OP of how those affidavits would help him.   

Don't get upset with me because I asked for details that you could not provide.



In answer to your question: 

howucantoo

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #126 on: Yesterday at 11:20:49 PM »
As far as I can tell, no one called your name to chime in on this thread either.  My question was about copies of affidavits provided by YOU which I would assume that you would consider to be relevant.   You did not answer the OP's question as to how those affidavits were proven to be false.  That's on you.

In addition, the OP is from TX.   Brent is an OH lawsuit in a federal court.   The affidavits you provided under "false affidavits  of Midland Funding" are not connected to Brent.

In no way have I claimed to "know it all".  You are the one who brought up the affidavits from another lawsuit.   I would think that by doing so, you'd be able to inform the OP of how those affidavits would help him.   

Don't get upset with me because I asked for details that you could not provide.



In answer to your question:

Since you are the "know it all" why don't you enlighten us with your knowledge?

I provided the poster with the best I could, you go ahead from here on and help him.
I am not an attorney, just  type" A" personality.
If you need legal help, you should seek legal counsel.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #127 on: Yesterday at 11:36:51 PM »
Since you are the "know it all" why don't you enlighten us with your knowledge?

I provided the poster with the best I could, you go ahead from here on and help him.

Huh?  Where did I claim to "know it all".  I asked questions.    Usually, when one asks questions, he is not claiming to "know it all".


howucantoo

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #128 on: Yesterday at 11:49:09 PM »
Huh?  Where did I claim to "know it all".  I asked questions.    Usually, when one asks questions, he is not claiming to "know it all".

You never ask questions, you are always condescending toward people by pretending to ask question. So go ahead do your deed , help him out.

And stop asking me questions, because from now on I am done with you.
I am not an attorney, just  type" A" personality.
If you need legal help, you should seek legal counsel.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #129 on: Today at 12:01:45 AM »
You never ask questions, you are always condescending toward people by pretending to ask question. So go ahead do your deed , help him out.

And stop asking me questions, because from now on I am done with you.

I never ask questions?    "Where is the court ruling on the Lauber affidavits?" in Reply #121 is not question?

You are the one who provided a link that you entitled "false affidavits of Midland".   I merely asked where the courts had ruled the affidavits that YOU copied were false. 

The OP essentially asked the same question.  Don't turn this around on me. 




howucantoo

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #130 on: Today at 02:41:35 AM »
I never ask questions?    "Where is the court ruling on the Lauber affidavits?" in Reply #121 is not question?

You are the one who provided a link that you entitled "false affidavits of Midland".   I merely asked where the courts had ruled the affidavits that YOU copied were false. 

The OP essentially asked the same question.  Don't turn this around on me.

Instead of asking, let your fingers do the Google ! How is that for exercise ?
I am not an attorney, just  type" A" personality.
If you need legal help, you should seek legal counsel.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Question about pending Midland law suit
« Reply #131 on: Today at 03:56:10 AM »
Instead of asking, let your fingers do the Google ! How is that for exercise ?

Oh, I get it!  We're supposed to take your word for whatever you say!  In other words, anyone who questions your posts have to do you what you're not willing to do.   It doesn't take much googling.  Since you're either incapable or willing to do nothing, I'll bite.

1.  The affidavits you copied in "false affidavits of Midlands"   were offered in Laudner v. Midland, a Washington lawsuit.  They were not offered in Midland Funding v. Brent.

2.  So far, you have nothing to show, other than your opinion, that those affidavits are false.  I agree that they are false, but there's nothing from a COURT that says so.  Absent a ruling from a court, it's merely our opinion that your copied affidavits are false.

3.  One of the details referenced by the court in Midland Funding v. Brent was the fact that the affiant said that he was involved in the decision or act of hiring the law firm to pursue action but after being question, he admitted he was not involved in that decision.   

4.  The affiant in Brent was subpoenaed and questioned.  The ruling was not based upon the affidavit alone.  Details, details.

4.  Brent was a Northern District of OH ruling.  I suggest that you read Myers v. Asset Acceptance and Webb v. Asset Acceptance, LLC both of which are Southern District of OH rulings and reference the Brent ruling.  They're based upon the details of the affidavits.

Here's a quote from Webb:

The fact that Melasi does not have personal knowledge regarding Webb's alleged credit card debt does not render her affidavit deceptive or misleading.


You never responded to the OP's question in post #116.   Where's the proof?  That was also my question.  You provided no answer but simply resorted to an attack.   You seem to think I was attacking you, but I wasn't.  I thought that perhaps you knew of a ruling on those affidavits that I didn't know about and had not found.

« Last Edit: Today at 04:15:22 AM by BellEbutton »