I'm stumped. I'm not so sure what is the right answer. I'll do some investigation and get back to you if I find an answer. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably could assist you..

I disagree. a party's litigious nature is clearly relevant to his credibility. Most of these cases will fall on a credibility call, and since you are the plaintiff, YOU have the burden of proof they committed violations. In a close case, I think you get burned if the defendant can show you have filed 5 previous lawsuits on the same grounds...

If a judge is prejudicial b/c someone is using the courts to enforce their rights, then that would be denying someone of their rights. I have rarely seen someone here say that they were going to sue for the hell of it...

Bad wording on my part. What I should have said was, your credibility in these cases is EVERYTHING! If you give the defendant ammo to destroy your credibility, you may have a legitimate claim be dismissed..

I work in a law firm which handles 1000s of cases a year. I have seen people with legitimate cases get screwed. I have seen people with ridculous cases hit the lottery. Its not fair, but it's life. Almost all of those cases were decided because someone just was/was not very credible in the eyes of the judge/jury...

OK, lets see, have you read my thread I posted a little while ago, 'since there is a TU rep posting here'? Are you saying that if I had previously sued someone before that I should not sue TU because I am a less credible plaintiff? As a matter of fact, I currently have a lawsuit in the motions against Efx for merging and swiching my files with someone else's since this is the case, should I not sue TU even though they have cost us MONEY caused us to LOOSE money and now have admitted to it? Nope. Both buraus have SCREWED up, cost us money and caused us nothing but greif. Are you saying if we happen to go in front of the same judge that he will be prejudicial b/c we have 2 cases against 2 bureaus who willfully broke the law. If so that judge should be removed from the bench...

Ok I am not getting into a shouting match with you. I am just pointing out a fact of life, not that you are not credible. Good luck to you..

Well I personally have never sued anyone so I am certainly not "Sue-Happy". However, I do feel that if you must sue in order to have the CRA's follow the law, then go for it. I may have to go that route as well...

Who's shouting, you are just implying that if anyone here wants t sue to enforce their given rights, they stand a chance of a judge being prejudicial and tossing their case. All I said is if that was the case the judge should be removed from the bench, if you are shouting, I don't know why?..

Thats the problem with typewritten words as opposed to spoken words. I just felt things were getting tense. I do wish you luck though. I do not know your situation, but I can tell you to be careful not to sue everyone and everybody because eventually you may get a judge who thinks you are just a litigious nutjob (not saying anyone here is one)..

I apologize I was not "shouting."..

Unfortunately because of the same "reality" we need.

To fight ardously to get the collectors, OC's and CRA's.

To comply with the law of the land! It's noty easy for most of us to get up the courage to face mostly overwhelming odds against us in our lawsuits. After.

All that,all these same people that get sued and have to pay the plaintiffs ,to back to their usual.

Shinannigans and that's why we have to keep on suing them. It's like the violation or the lawsuit.

Paradox, which came first?..

I am not getting tense, but the way I am reading you're post, it says to me that the laws are there to protect us as long as we only use them once or twice, I just do not agree with you. Now if someone were to bring, what would the word be, "Frivilous" lawsuits (no pun intended) against every joe blow and his brother with no basis, then I would agree with you, but as I stated earlier I have RARELY seen someone here post that they were going to sue just for the hell of it. Which as long as they have a legitimate case, if they want to sue just for the hell of it, I say go for it. If whoever they are suing broke the law and caused damages, why should they not have to answer to the courts?..

Rocket scenario:.

1)I have 15 dogs.

2)Every month some angry neighbors shoot at my dogs because of their excessive barking..

3)I file a civil case against the identified shooter.

4) I win my case.

5) repeat back to 1) about 5 times.

You mean to tell me, since I've already won a previous case against an animal killer, that a judge will be biased against me because I decide to file charges each time one of my dogs are murdered and I sue successfully?.

What do you think we have laws for ? To protect us. Everytime someone is out of violation they deserve to get their a$$ spanked with the law. I know every citizen does with speeding tickets. I don't see judges being biased toward police officers for writing repeated speeding tickets arising from speedtraps. "Officer Donut, I already ruled in your and the City of Dunkin Donutsville's favor on the last 4 tickets. I'm ruling in favor of the defendant this time to change things up." When you see this happen in a town tell me where so I can move there immediately..

I agree with the previous poster, any judge who doesn't follow the strict rules of law should be removed from the bench. He can't decide not to follow law because of your repeated suits which have basis anyway. I know judges are allowed "some" discretion; however, they can't create new laws on the bench or ignore existing ones. Thank God for appeals courts...

No offense by this statement, but you are living in an non-existent fantasy world where everything is fair and everyone plays by the rules. Frankly, if a judge does not belive you, and you are the plaintiff, you LOSE. Your credibility comes into question when you become OVERLY litigious. I have seen it many times. Like I said take it with a grain of salt. I just feel in a CLOSE case, where you have an attorney showing a judge 10 lawsuits in which you sued other creditors for the same thing, the judge may question YOUR credibility and find you did not sustain your burden...

I agree if he does not follow the law, he should be reversed on appeal. However, a judge's finding of fact (i.e. - your credibility) gets a lot of deference by an appeal court. Look at the "manifest error" rule if you do not believe me...

You know what I would think if I was the judge and someone came before me that WON 10 other cases against these people for the same thing (I know you did not say win, but I would not sue 10 different people for the same thing if I kept losing, so I will assume we are talking about successful suits) I would think 'gee's you would think these damn cra's/ca's would learn their lesson after the first or second time and start following the law.'..

I thought it was 3 strikes and you're out not 3 strikes and you're in...

I have to say that I agree with the line of thinking your expressing in this post (although it is not going to be popular here). If you have a history of bringing numerous suits, then win or lose you may be looked at with some predigest..

I know that every Judge in the United States is human, therefore foul able and predisposed to personal opinions. I think that is part of why the members on the board that have gone to court have not won every case, it's not just a matter of weather the defendant has broken the law (most of the threads I have read it seams clear) it's weather the judge thinks the law has been broken or you are just a gold digger looking for a big payday from the big fat corporation..

Judges are not all completely impartial, that doesn’t mean that you should not file against these bottom feeding scum, it just means that you may loose. Keep fighting the good fight until someone notices and makes the system better...

1. If the judge doesn't want us to tie up his court he should award huge awards to us so the CA's won't break the law..

2. In lots of counties in CA the court has people that try to settle your suit before it goes to the judge as way to free up the court..

3. The District Attorney in Ventura, CA has a free service that acts like lawyer for you and settles cases for free. I used them against Pac Bell when I used to live there and they got a deletion for me with just one letter to the CA. They said if it goes to court it helps me because the judge will know the CA is playing hardball and waisting his time...

As representation for the defendant in a case involving violations where I had seen documentation that the plaintiff had successfully sued and won in ten other cases, the first thing I would do is try to keep the case from going to court. The plaintiff knows what they are doing, and is obviously not intimidated in a court of law. At this point it would be wise to settle out of court for less and without having to cover the plaintiffs attorney fees...