This is the conclusion I've written to use in court the 19th of this month. There's been a lot of sleepless nights to say the least. I can't believe this is happening.
Without offering or defining any validation right to the Defendant, there should be no claim against the Defendant. The pursuit of this case without offering any timely account validation(s), such as, original Creditor's address, relevant account date(s), account number or even verifying a billing address; "Plaintiff's Exhibit A" is baseless. Additionally, expecting this Honorable Court to find the Defendant liable for any debt because their original denial was "too general", ignores relevant law protecting the consumer and the Defendant's original desire to settle this matter outside Civil Court. In contrast, the Plaintiff (by) Counsel's zealous actions in filing a premature motion for a Default Judgment, no response to the Defense letter from July, 2007 and trying to overwhelm the Defense with legal but burdensome interrogatories is consistent with actions that have burdened fair and equal treatment, under the law, to the point where state courts now must answer to every changing Federal Law in the pursuit of protecting "the individual" and any chance of "the everyday common soul" standing and being heard before a court without expensive legal counsel. The Plaintiff by ounsel, has ignored and consequently missed the opportunity to find common ground with the Defense in discovering just what the truth is in this matter; whether simple error(s) or Identity Theft. Additionally, the Plaintiff by Counsel, has approached this Honorable Court knowing the Defense will seek the legal "firewall" defining the account, in question, as an "Open Account" beyond the Statutes of Limitation. Therefore the Defense begs this Honorable Court to find for the Defense and Dismiss with Prejudice the charges.