Skip to content

The Rape of America – Supported by Your Local Judiciary

March 18, 2012
Because the affidavits were false, the judge ruled that the company’s collection process was not legal. This is the common practice across the whole debt collection industry. Hundreds, if not thousands, of these boilerplate affidavits are generated each day. “every credit card judgment is void”

A ruling in a class-action lawsuit in Ohio casts serious doubts about affidavits being used all over the country to support debt buyer collection lawsuits. A U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the commonly used affidavit submitted by one of the nation’s biggest debt collectors was not legal.

The District Court Judge issued an injunction against the company, creating doubt about collection lawsuits across the nation that used the same affidavits in support of debt collection suits. In his ruling, debt collectors, as a practice, signed affidavits stating that the individual clerk had “personal knowledge” of the debt being collected when they did not possess any such knowledge.

Because the affidavits were false, the judge ruled that the company’s collection process was not legal. “It is unclear to this court why such a patently false affidavit would be the standard form used at a business that specialized in the legal ramifications of debt collection.” This is the common practice across the whole debt collection industry.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of these boilerplate affidavits are generated each day, and I have strong doubts about whether the people signing them have “personal knowledge” about all, or any, of the accounts. Yet courts across the country continue to accept the testimony in these questionable affidavits as gospel.

In other words, NOT every judgment is a valid judgment and, in fact, when it comes to credit card debt and other unsecured debt, virtually every judgment is void. In nearly every debt collection lawsuit the individual clerk who signed the affidavit does not have first-hand knowledge and therefore is not a competent witness and the affidavit submitted is false, therefore every credit card judgment is void.

This is also the reason that debt collection lawsuit never go to trial but will always end up in a quick judgment against the debtor? The debt collector would need a competent fact witness to testify, someone with first-hand knowledge. There’s no such thing as evidence without a competent fact witness. The individual clerk who signed the affidavit does not qualify as a competent witness.

Advertisements
3 Comments
  1. Rosco Rodriguez permalink

    Are there any citations to the case referenced? I’d like the case.

    • Rosco,

      The research started when I came across the class-action lawsuit article “Ohio judge rules that Midland Funding used “patently false affidavits” in collection lawsuits”.

      http://toddmurraylaw.com/ohio-judge-rules-that-midland-funding-used-patently-false-affidavits-in-collection-lawsuits/comment-page-1/

      Google Midland Funding, you will find pages on this subject.

      The issue here in not about Midland Funding, there are 100s of debt collection companies just like them. The real issue is about the debt collection practices in general. “Bringing fraud upon the court” where judges are rubber-stamping grants for judgments based on these false affidavits when they know they are fraudulent “using the courts to aid and abet their felony fraud”.

      • Rosco Rodriguez permalink

        Thanks for the reply. Trying to gather the info as to how courts are responding to the robo-signed affidavits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: