|Subject:||Deadlin tomorrow!! Answering Summons|
Hello, Not sure how I put it off to this point,
but I have to answer a summons for a credit
card debt, and the end of my 28 days to
answer is tomorrow. I am already planning
to file bankruptcy very soon.
The essence of my question is: What can I
legally and honestly deny or claim "lack of knowledge" about, without getting myself
into unnecessary trouble
and without causing any problem with my subsequent
Here are the details. I apologize for long-windedness, but I hope the the more information you have the more quickly and accurately you can reply.
I've already done a lot of research, and I
think I know what I need to put in my
"Answer". I know how to format the
answer and so forth.
I only need to answer in order to buy time,
avoid a default judgement, delay the
judgement so I can file for bankruptcy.
I want to avoid getting into any trouble by
denying or admittin
g too much. The allegations in the complaint are
straightforward and essentially true.
I do not believe I can deny the debt, but I can honestly say I do not know the amount claimed
What I want to say in my answer is something
like,"Defendent denies for lack of information
the allegations in the following paragraphs: 1, 2, 3, 4", or maybe just "Defendent denies for lack fo information all allegations of the plaintiff".
Have have typed in the paragraphs of the complaint (at teh bottom of this message).
Basically I can deny certain knowledge of the specific amount in paragraph (1), as I do not have recent statements in my records. Of course, I have no reason to believe that the credit card company's record are incorrect.
I am not sure that paragraph (2) is even considered an "allegation" that needs to be admitted or denied. Certainly 2(b) and (c) are not within my knowledge.
Regarding 2(a) I cannot confirm that I have received statements every month. I have moved recently, and in truth I am careless with my mail.
I do have a statement from several months earlier that cites a slightly smaller amount (i.e. less interest and late fees) than in their paragraph (1).
Paragraph (3) refers to "this repayment obligation", since "this" must refer to the amount in paragraph (1), I think tat I can also say that I am unsure about paragraph (3) if unsure about
paragraphs 1. Certainly I have a debt that is close to that stated in the claim, but do I have to admit that?
Paragraph 4 mentions "the balance" rather than "this balance". Certainly I owe a balance and do not want to deny that. However, can I deny knowledge of the truth of paragraph 4 assuming it is again referring to the specific amount in paragraph 1?
Obviously I do not want to make any false denials. I also do not want to claim "lack of knowledge" if when we sit down with a judge the judge is going to say something like "gimme a break, you had
relatively recent statements, you knew the debt was at least $X, so you should have been more clear in your "Answer".
Here are the paragraphs of the complaint:
1) There is due the Plaintiff from teh defendant(s) upon a credit
card account debt, account number #######, the sum of $#,###.##.
2) Attached hereto as exhibit "A" is an account statment attesting to
the amount owed the plaintiff. The remaining account records are not
attached hereto because, upon information and belief: (a) copies were
sent month to the efendant(s), and are or were in Defendat(s)'
possession, custody or control; (b) said records were archived by the
Plaintiff; and/or (c) said account records may be voluminous.
3. Defendant(s) is in default on this repayment obligation.
4. Although due demand has been made, the Defendant has failed to
liquidate the balance due and owing.
|Answer:||Sorry I'm late but I've been so busy helping people that I'm running|
behind in getting out my responses on this forum.
I do hope you got your answer in on time even though it may not be
the best you could have done. But if you got your answer in on time
let's move on towards defeating the complaint. Let's move on from
worrying about whether you actually owe the debt to what is it that
the plaintiff has done wrong that you can use against him.
In other words, get away from defensive thinking and shift to offensive
thinking. That's the way you win cases if they can be won at all.
First you say, "Obviously I do not want to make any false denials."
What difference does it make if you do that or not? If you were guilty
of a murder or other crime would you be wrong in denying the crime
even though you know you did it? Of course not. When you deny you
are basically only saying that you demand that they prove your guilt.
It isn't lying or perjuring yourself. Nothing wrong with denials even
if you know the allegations to be true.
Secondly you say "I also do not want to claim "lack of knowledge" if
when we sit down with a judge the judge is going to say something
like "gimme a break, you had relatively recent statements, you knew
the debt was at least $X, so you should have been more clear
in your "Answer"."
Judges sometimes do make such or similar statements but they are
not allowed to do so. Your response to such questions from the bench
should be an objection. Judges are supposed to listen to the evidence
and testimoy before the court and make their decisions based on that
and that alone. If the judge asks such leading questions and the
defendant is so ignorant that he answers them instead of objecting to
the questions then defendants deserve what they get.
Creditwrench students know better than that. They know how to
object and how to correctly explain the basis for their objections and
if their objections are denied from the bench they know how to get
their objections moved to a review by an appellate court.
They learn about such things as how to quickly identify leading
questions and what they can and cannot object to. They are provided
with a fun computer program that teaches them what is objectionable,
what is proper and how to object as well as what to do if the objection
You say that you are not sure that paragraph (2) is even considered
an "allegation" that needs to be admitted or denied yet that is probably
the first thing that should be attacked. A single statement is not nearly
enough to prove a claim.
The statement by the plaintiff's attorney is not even admissable
because it plainly states that it is hear say. The mere fact that the
phrase "upon information and belief" immediately telegraphs the fact
that the attorney relies upon what he heard from someone else.
He has no first hand knowledge about anything at all. Everything he
states is hearsay and must be proven by testimony from a person or
person having first hand knowledge of the facts alleged. That can be
done through personal testimony or by affidavit. The attorney is
actually begging not to be forced to procure the actual records from
the plaintiff as he knows he is supposed to do and uses the excuse that
those records may be voluminous.
So what? Do your job and quit whining attorney. And account
statements cannot attest to anything. They are copies and they are
not even certified as being true and correct copies by the person who
did the copying. Therefore they are not admissible in a court of law
either. All of that makes little difference to corrupt judges who allow
that kind of nonsense into their courts and get away with it because
defendants have not learned how to effectively defend themselves
against such outrageous conduct from a judicial system that cares
not for the legal rights of defendants.
2) Attached hereto as exhibit "A" is an account statement attesting
to the amount owed the plaintiff. The remaining account records are
not attached hereto because, upon information and belief:
(a) copies were sent month to the defendant(s), and are or were in
Defendant(s)' possession, custody or control;
(b) said records were archived by the Plaintiff; and/or (c) said
account records may be voluminous.
Creditwrench students learn how to do it the right way.
How to set up your hard drive for creditwrench files.
Makes them easy to find.
The Creditwrench conference calls will start this coming Friday
evening at 7 P.M. Central time. It is free and open to the public.
There is no cost or obligation other than what it may cost you
for the phone call itself. You can join in and ask questions or
just listen or whatever you want to do.
Dial-in Number: (712) 432-1601
Access code: 508548#
You might also want to visit our message forum
at http://consumers.creditwrench.com to get answers to
questions you need answered before next Friday night.
If you live within driving distance of Oklahoma City you can
also come to our monthly meeting of the Oklahoma City Chapter
of Jurisdictionary meetings. They are held on the 2nd Thursday
of each month at Coit's Root Beer Stand which is located on the
corner of SW 24th & Western Ave in Oklahoma City.
The meetings start promptly at 7:00 P.M. and last for 2 hours.
Attendees usually arrive about half an hour early so they can
enjoy a good meal at Coit's Root Beer Stand.
The meetings are free and open to the public and we can
discuss your problems as well if you like.
We are going to start holding mock trials so that you can learn
some court room procedures.