Transcript of Hearing Fraudulent Collections
TABLE OF CONTENTS ALPHABETIZED
You can toggle back and forth this way.
Re: FRAUDULENT COLLECTIONS, SMALL CLAIMS FRAUD, ETC.
Update 6August2021 - TRANSCRIPT, MOTIONS, LETTER, JUDICIAL COMPLAINT
I will include below the associated links to this same issue
Ref: FRAUDULENT COLLECTIONS - all blogposts associated with this have a skunk picture if you are using your phone - this may be useful for you.
The above letter was sent by "me" which is what the LVNV attorney referred to herself as when appearing on this $hit-show.
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS BLOG, ALPHEBETIZED
You can toggle back and forth this way on your phone. It should work on a computer also. I need test it. 8/1/2021
Case No. NNH-CV-20-6105010-S : State of Connecticut
LVNV Funding, LLC : Superior Court
Vs : Court of New Haven
Anne M. Bradley : AUGUST 6, 2021
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 20MAY2021
Some sections (inaudible due to pressured speach)
Note, some areas are my notes - they were italicized but the letters changed to all the same when I pasted it - I will make those areas in RED .....
1. Bardps: Yes, Your Honor. Quick Question on Order of Operations. First, we filed a Motion To Dismiss the Defendant's Counterclaim. I don't know if Your Honor would like to entertain that first.
2. Judge: I'm gonna do the whole thing at once (29:44)
3. Bardos: Ok, Your Honor, so we will in that case, uhm present our claim first and, uhm - we have a witness here. Miss Victoria Mason.
4. Mason sworn in. She responds with : I do
5. Bardos: For the record, Ma'am, what is your name, Ma'am?
6. Mason: Victoria Mason. M-A-S-O-N
7. Bardos: Who is your employer?
8. Mason: I am employed with RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES. I'm the Records Custondian for LVNV Funding.
9. Bardos: And how long have you been employed there?
10. Mason; uh - 3 1/2 years
11. Bardos: Uh - As part of your duties - are you maintaining and have access to the records of the plaintiff in this mamtter?
12. Mason: I do.
13. Bardos: And are you currently familiar with the policies and procedures regarding credit card accounts?
14. Mason: I do.
15. Bardos: Have you personal knowledge of this matter based on your review of the records in this case?
16. Mason: I have.
17. Bardos: And does the plaintiff have a record of the existence of an account for Anne Bradley?
18. Mason: We do. It's an account that we purchased from Synchrony Bank on an Amazon debtors card - uh, that we purchased, uh February twenty nineteen (2019)
19. Bardos: Perfect, and let's see here, uhm, Have we filed in this case in terms of documents you reviewed that transferred from Synchrony Bank to the plaintiff, LVNV Funding?
20. Mason: Yes, you filed a, uhm, affidavit of debt with the chain of title on it and filed separately the actual redacted portfolio for that chain of title. Also from those files for the business statements the billing statements for the last year of the account and the terms and condition of the account.
21. Bardos: Perfect. And have you had a chance to review the individual billing statements as well?
22. Mason: I have.
23. Bardos:--- uhm, are those types of documents kept in all course of business and created out in here for the time of the events you described?
24. Mason: Yes, for both LVNV Funding and the orginal creditor Synchrony Bank. I have been trained at Synchrony Bank so I understand their billing proceedures.
25. Bardos: Perfect. And uhm Along with the submittals of this case, would there be uhm, payments on the June 27, 2017 statement?
26. Mason: Yes, there was a payment made,specifically on, uhm, Let's see you, uhm, -- notice June 5th, 2017 in the amount of $30
27. Bardos: -- payments on some other, uh, account statements as well --
28. Mason: Yes, we had payments from the February 2017 through the June 2017 Statement.
29. Yet the AI altered her testimony to say WE (she is not LVNV, but is an attorney who abuses power with the brain of a pea) purchased the Synchrony account in 2019 - this is all constant lies.
30. Bardos: Oh, and is the defendant currently in default for -- make payments? 32:47min
31. Mason: Yes.
32. Bardos: And according to the filed statement --- Is the defendant in debt to the plaintiff on this matter $875.90? 33:11min
33. Mason: Yes.
34. Bardos: Uhm , and according to your records, that balance comprises of about charges made by the borrower-- as well as fees and interests? Yet she claimed she had no purchase records and was a CERTIFIED LICENSED BULLSHITTER, aka "Attorney Me" who has no legal right to take the stand since she said she was representing LVNV - she's a liar and the court is lying for her!
35. Mason: Yes (33:29 min)
36. Bardos: Uhm, a final question, uhm, are you seeking, uhm, a reimbursement of the court costs on this matter which are $108.15? Plus post judgment interests --
37. Mason: Yes.
38. Bardos: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
39. Judge: Ms. Mason, is LVNV documents -- and billing address: 360 State or 380 ---
40. Mason: (inaudible sounds)
41. Bradley: May I ask what document that is proferred on the file?
42. Judge: You don't need to know, Ms. Bradley, I just want to clear up this one issue on the file.
43. Mason: I have 360 State Street, Apartment 719, New Haven Court, 06510. Uhm - also on, uh redacted portfolio data string I have 360 State Street, Apartment 719 New Haven Connecticut 06510
44. Judge: Ms. Bradley, do you want to ask this witness any questions based upon what she just said?
45. Bradley: I'd like to know if they were documents that she proferred today in the court.
46. Mason: ( says nothing)
47. Judge: Well, not today, but they had filed previously - filed uh, Exhibits with Affidavit and documents. Answer is yes. Which is illegal!
48. Bradley: What exhibits would that be? Because I motioned to Strike Exhibits that were not certified and not served on me and I, uh - so those are very significant issues for her to testify to when that matter is contested - greatly contested. There were two - uh two documents of exhibits. The second exhibit wasn't even uhm - there was no - there was nothing on it that - that uhm, had any substance to anything. There was no title on it.
49. Bardos (interrupts) inaudible any statements
50. Judge: (inaudible) (also takes part in interrupting)
51. Bradley: How can she be a witness to contested documents? That's my point. Before I ask her any questions, I want to know what she is remarking - what she's uhm, making statements on - because..
52. Judge (interrupts): (inaudible sounds)
53. Bradley: Those documents are contested.
54. Judge: Well, so Ms. Mason, so why don't you describe what documents you are relying on - on your testimony?
55. Mason: Well, first there is the uh, specifically the affidavit and purchase of account by plaintiff.
56. Bradley: What File Number is that?
57. Judge (interrupts with inaudible sounds)
58. Bradley: I would like to know pertaining to this case.
59. Judge --- please. Go ahead, please.
60. Mason: I don't know, Sir. I don't have the affidavit. I have a separate file
61. Bradley: Well, the attorney would.
62. Bardos: If I may, Your Honor. I have the docket sheet in front of me. I can reference -- for Your Honor's help pending on the Docket Number.
63. Bradley: What is it?
64. Judge: Entry 100.3
65. Bradley? 103?
66. Judge: No, one zero zero point three three
67. Bradley: There is no file file entered on this case with that number
68. Judge: Well, if you look at the docket - - that this case CV20-615010, you go to uhm the 4th entry. It's document number 100.33
69. Bradley: Okay. I heard 1003.33
70. Judge: 100.33
71. Bradley: Okay
72. Judge: It's an Affidavit along with statements of the account
73. Bradley: Okay
74. Judge: That's what she relied on, correct, Ms. Mason?
75. Mason: That is one of the documents. That is the affidavit of the facts and purchase that was prepared by my co-worker Pamela Johnson for this matter. We are also, uh, have uhm the redacted data string which was filed separately which is specifically the portfolio itself in a redacted form identifying the account that was purchased. Then there are...
76. Bradley: What Number is that? What file number?
77. Bardos: Your Honor, if I may, uh, give you the numbers. The number of the redacted data string is uhm uhm 116 and the only other thing besides our uhm Motion to Dismiss, well, are uhm additional billing statements, 113, Your Honor
78. Bradley: So, you're using 116, File 116 in referencing File Number 113?
79. Bardos: Those two as well as the initial filing into court including 100.33
80. Bradley: Okay, it's those three documents that you're referring to right now, right?
81. Bardos: Correct
82. Bradley: And not the Actual complaint?
83. Judge: Well, they're referencing the complaint but they're also referencing support of their complaint - the documents identified - REPEATEDLY DEFENDS THE PLAINTIFF WHICH IS ILLEGAL!
84. in defense of the plaintiff - which occures MANY TIMES in this hearing
85. Bradley: Well, the complaint has on it that this case is, uhm, request that the court to apply CGS 37-3a to it. 37-3a.has to do with Medical Expenses and that's just , that's just a piece of the haphazzardness of this case. The filing of this case - It's saying the Issuer issued defendant a credit card and upon that card defendant because - must be became but they would not ever fix that - because after all, they pop these out, you know, like candy - and it says obligated to make timely payments. It says defendant defaulted the issuer assigned its rights to title and ownership - defendants debt to plaintiff?
86. Bardos: interrupts
87. Bradley: NO! The issuer was GE Money!
88. Bardos attempts to talk over Bradley and Bradley kept talking firmly
89. Bradley: GE Money was the issuer. They're falsifying facts of the case to begin with. So...
90. Judge: interrupts Ms Bradley, we -- do you live at 360 State Street?
91. Bradley: Excuse me?
92. Judge: Do you live at 360 State Street, Apartment 719 in New Haven?
93. Bradley: Yes, I do! I've not disputed that. I put it on numerous documents! NOTE, THE JUDGE ONLY ASKS TO STALL FOR TIME, TO INTIMIDATE ME, AND PROBABLY AS A CODE TO THEIR UNDERGROUND TO MURDER ME! MY SISTER, Kathy Davis, HAD AN UNTIMELY DEATH 4/23/2018. She looked like she was poisoned. Her youngest son's home was burned to the ground and he died 2 weeks later of blood poisoning and her daughter's home was destroyed by explosions, killing her 18 year old daughter and father - my brother in law, in Tennessee! The Writ that they created on this case was backdated to 4/23! I found out about my relatives' deaths from an anonymous letter - from "Me" - most likely "Attorney Me" or a collaborator!
94. Judge: You used the credit card..
95. Bradley: Not while I lived at 360 State Street!
96. Judge: No, I'm just saying
97. Bradley: I stopped paying on the Amazon card. I stopped making purchases - that's what I wanted to ask this witness. Do you know the purchase activity of that card? That's what I would like to ask this witness if she --
98. Judge: You can still ask that question.
99. Bradley: Yes
100. Mason: One moment . I'm looking at the portfolio data string. long pause I do not have the statements that have last payments. She just keeps referring to documents that are ILLEGAL, I MOTIONED TO STRIKE AND THE DAMN JUDGE DID NOT EVEN HEAR THE MOTION TO STRIKE, MY OTHER MOTIONS - AND LATER HE REFERS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS MY COUNTERCLAIM - AS MY MOTION TO DISMISS. THEY DON'T CARE. THEY FIGURE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WILL FIX EVERYTHING!
101. Judge interrupts: makes inaudible sounds
102. Bradley: firmly says I said PURCHASE. I did not say payments. NOTICE HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THE JUDGE TO EVEN SETTLE ONE ISSUE AND THE BABOON ASKS ME WHAT MY ADDRESS IS OVER AND OVER EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CONFIRMED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING AS WELL IN DOCUMENTS! HE'S A FAKE! A FRAUD!
103. Mason: I apologize
104. Judge: inaudible sounds
105. Mason: I did not have the statements with your last purchase on it. I only have the last 12 statements.
106. They used Artificial Intelligence to delete a portion here - there is a break in subject matter
107. Bradley: Yeah, even though all through this whole, you know uhm, years of abuse by many companies including True Accord, Resurgent, LVNV--
108. Judge interrupts Miss Bradley, Ms. Bradley, I'm not worried about these other companies. The question is you took out a credit card and incurred expenses. LOOK AT www.lvnv.com - they rigged their website to cover their lying behinds!
109. Bradley: I did not incur expenses that I did not pay for! That's my point! They are - they even reduced - when Synchrony took it over they reduced the credit limit for no valid reason. They also failed to abide by the agreement which I had with GE Money. So if they want to stop the revolving credit, they have to issue a new agreement and they never did - and they should give me the choice of whether I want to agree to -- THE SMALL CLAIMS WRIT WAS BASED ON MEDICAL EXPENSES! SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY! THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT! THEY JUST KEEP LYING, FRAUDING!
110. Judge: rudely interrupts to defend plaintiff AGAIN with inaudible sounds which could interrupt train of thought by Bradley
111. Bradley: to their terms, which I would not agree to and I stopped purchasing Amazon - purchasing through that card in 2014. And they're saying I made payments of $30/month and I only became uh-uh defaulted in 2017. Do you realize 36 times 30 is over $1,000? And they reduced my credit line to $710.
112. note Lines 26 27, 28!
113. Judge: How much were the default charges, uhm, Miss Mason? again, only caring about defending the plaintiff!
114. Mason: The average default charge per month was $25. Interest was uhm over $10 a month.
115. Mason did not say that. She responded with the $339.63. She said the monthly payments were $25 and Bradley paid $5 more at the hearing. This was altered by AI.obviously, she would have included this in Lines 26-28. These people are spewing off with whatever fits their whims figuring AI will fix it anyway, to frame the case in favor of the plaintiff - no matter how fraudulent they are.
116. This statement which was crafted in the case only proves more that the balance was paid! SHE ADMITTED BRADLEY PAID $30/MONTH FOR 36 MONTHS, Lines 26-28. WHICH WAS OVER $1,000, WHICH WOULD OVERPAY HER BALANCE IN 2017. She admitted Bradley paid TIMELY until 6 montns after they took over the account in 2017! AI altered her testimony to say they didn't get the account until 2019 - which is contrary to documents, unless AI altered court records also, according to the programmers tricks! They are frauding information and the judge only conspires to help them win a case with no merit, based on MEDICAL EXPENSES!
117. Judge: Right, so $30
118. Bradley: There was no default charge! My point is very clear! I stopped making purchases on that card in 2014! and I said I was paying off the balance and that's it! And I paid off the balance and I stopped their - I told them - well, I told them to stop the card in 2014! And that's what happened. Any Amazon payments that I made, I made alot! I purchased a alot for having a small income. And uhm I purchased them with cash. I did not use that card! And they are frauding records right now by deliberately not telling the court when my last purchases were, what my purchase activity is. They have the burden of proof and they're not proving anything but being FRAUDS.
119. Bardos: Your Honor, if I may - pressured speech, words jumbled - I just wanna point out that the evidence and the Statute 36-a13. We provided much more -
120. Bradley: Now he's using a DIFFERENT STATUTE than what he used in the Small Claim!
121. Bardos: whimpering, whining, bumbling
122. Bradley: He used 37-3a! So he's falsifying information!
123. Judge attempts to defend plaintiff again
124. Bradley: Because he never corrected it - he never corrected it - he could care a less because they push these out like candy and expect the court to just go along with it! Well, I'm not going to agree to that! I think this is fraud! The issuer did not turn over my account! The issuer didn't! The issuer was GE Money - they were the issuer of this account and that's the reason why they didn't put their name on there. This case is very-very wrong, they don't even have a legal appearance. THEY USE A Pro Hac Vice appearance. This attorney is in Connecticut - not in Michigan and I looked up Michigan for the members of the Bar Asosciation and neither Moylan or uhm Bardos are listed. They say they're not found. PRO HAC MEANS HE IS OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY WITH "ONE TIME ONLY" APPEARANCE - SOME OUT OF STATE ATTORNEYS DO HAVE REGISTRATION IN ANOTHER STATE. IN THIS CASE, THIS BIMBO IS A CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY, LIVES IN CONNECTICUT. MOYLAN'S ADDRESS IS RIGHT BY THE COURT SERVICE CENTER IN WETHERSFIELD - AND ABUSED HIS POWER TO GET THEM TO BLOCK MY E-FILING....THAT IS CRIMINAL, BUT THEY DON'T CARE BECAUSE THE COURTS ARE RUN BY ORGANIZED CRIME!
125. Also what was mentioned was the fact of IMPROPER SERVICE to begin with - it has been documented more than once as well, by Bradley. It is obvious this court only wanted to go along with TARGETING ANNE BRADLEY.
126. Judge: completely ignores what is just said and discusses with plaintiff how much defendant owes voice is largely inaudible as if he is video conferencing with the plaintiff (Bardos and a female who said she was "me" represented LVNV and then says she is Victoria Mason as witness) Balance is---default charges
127. Mason: --- last statement that I have here. The charge-off account principle is $536.27 SHE SAID AT THE HEARING "WE PURCHASED THE ACCOUNT FROM SYNCHRONY BANK" 1. She works for Resurgent, but says "We" because she is an attorney illegally testifying as a representative of LVNV! They don't care! It is all "catch me if you can" 2. They didn't purchase the account from Synchrony. LVNV purchased it from Sherman Companies. 3. They purchased it in 2017, that is what she admitted to and artificial intelligence altered what she said to cover their lying a$$es!
128. REMINDER; charge-off was February 2017. That is what this "Attorney Me - aka Victoria Mason" testified as to when LVNV purchased the account from Synchrony Bank, yet this recording was altered by AI and she oddly "says" twenty nineteen, which was unlike how she pronounced the year dates she mentioned!Over $1,000 was paid to Synchrony from 2014 to 2017. Bradley had the GE Money Account since 2011. Synchrony purchased the account from GE Money in 2013. Bradley soon realized their nefarious billing activity had no solution and therefore stopped using the card and paid on the balance. She kept track of what her real balance was because they continued to fraud the billing. This so-called expert witness is lying and caught up in her own lies! And the judge knew that the only strategy he could use is change the subject and ask information already on record. He did this several times to drag out the time with nonsense! And put pressure on Bradley with "we gotta hurry" statements because it was the end of the day! ..and the charge-off account, interest charge, which would include late fees and --is $339.63
129. Judge: So when you stopped making payments, the principal was $536.27?
130. Bradley: I stopped making payments - purchases - in 2014! And they are frauding their records, saying "I don't know when that is" - and I have emphasized that over and over! I mean, this case not even - has no merit - none! I paid off what I owed! What they're doing is FRAUDING! That's what they're doing! I mean, just - just multiply 36 x 30. My minumum due was not $25, it was $30. I paid the minimum due. [note, defendant on this case claims certain segments were deleted by AI - the attorney who said she was representing LVNV and also served as expert witness said specifically that the monthly payments were $25 and I paid $5 more - it didn't fit the programmed artificial intelligence plan so it was deleted!}
131. Judge: kept interrupting with inaudible sounds Can you provide a copy of the payment history? another distraction! not asking for purchase history! AI defeated its purpose! THERE WAS NO MONTHLY DEFAULT CHARGE BECAUSE I WAS NEVER DEFAULTED! I PAID THE MINIMUM AMOUNT DUE, STOPPED USING THE CARD AND WHEN THE BALANCE WAS PAID, I SAID CLOSE THE DAMN CARD! Mason would have said the $25 was monthly default charge - she didn't! She would have elaborated more - she didn't! And of course none of these "figures" makes any sense anyway because they are piling lies on lies! They are not consistent because they are used to being puppets, airheads. She even said the reason why she didn't have all the records because "they didn't give them to me" - they handed her the script she was supposed to say and the papers she was supposed to "use as evidence" which has less value than toiletpaper!
132. Mason: I only have the last 12 statements, Your Honor. I'm sorry. That's all that was provided to me. THE FREAKING BIMBO IDIOT PUPPET ATTORNEY! HOW STUPID CAN SOMEONE BE - SAYING SHE HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE, OF THE BILLING HISTORY, AND BLURTS OUT THIS AND SAYS HER PRAYERS TO AI TO GET THEM TO FIX THIS ON RECORDING!
133. She said she has MANAGED THE COLLECTIONS ACCOUNT SINCE 2017, WORKED FOR RESURGENT FOR 3 1/2 YEARS, AND NOW SAYS THIS? This "Attorney Me" most likely has scattered her FAKE POSITIONS with other companies and follows agendas, having no regard over the law or even telling the truth!
134. Bardos: Your Honor, I apologize, look at the file. I wanna make sure he sees not only did we file the last activity of charges in the initial complaint --
135. Bradley: I object to that because that is false! He's making false statements. I, uhm, I motioned to strike those two exhibits because they have no relevance to this case and concocting, uhm, a billing history which has absolutely no ledger of purchases and payments on it - just before the hearing is a trick - that's all it is! And I didn't get served! And in the certification he even puts down it was electronically served to PO Box 206514! I mean, they don't even care about doing their jobs! THIS IS FRAUDULENT! And that's why it's just so horrible! I've had to work on this over and over again. The case doesn't even have any merit to begin with! And shouldn't have even been docketed! Yet they even made me respond in three days from the day I received the small claim from the court. I only had three days! And I had to prepare the Answer, Special Defenses, and an Appendix. And that is file No. 103. The court actually frauded - made file No. 104, part of the case and it's total fraud! They took out page 7 of my Appendix and put it as a First Page of 104! I did not submit that! I only amended a document - that's all I did. So I did not amend my Answer or Counterclaim. So this case is being very - I'm not getting Due Process here - they just want to slam dunk me and they're doing that with all kinds of fraud! That's all it is! And uhm, this you know --
136. Judge interrupts Bardos with inaudible sound but probably can see him on a screen - THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE VIDEOSTREAMING EACHOTHER AND YET HAVE ME ON PHONE, WHICH IS FRAUDULENT. ALL PARTIES ARE TO BE HEARD THE SAME WAY.
137. Bardos: Yeah, Your Honor
138. Judge: Your office can file an affidavit showing the purchase history and payment history
139. Bardos: Your Honor, there's two things about that inaudible based on inaudible record. But We --
140. Judge picks up the slack for plaintiff as usual We only want -
141. Bardos: Yeah, I know, Your Honor. but we mumbles with pressured speech my CLIENT is a debt collector, so by right - oh, okay the judge must have gestured to Bardos via video conference - so I just wanna point out Your Honor, just for the record under Statute 36a-uhm a-13 -
142. Bradley: He's using that statute again and the case has 37-3a - that's what their complaint states! So they better stick to it because that's all they can legally argue. And it's the same with the Motion To Dismiss. They don't even have any facts or law on there, yet they want to argue it? Yeah, they cannot argue anything more than what was written! So and there's no substance to it!
143. Judge: again completely ignores what is said charge history and ...
144. Bardos: Well, you said I could provide -
145. more pressured speech...inaudible - no doubt he was hoping the judge would finish his sentence for him
146. Judge: Miss Bradley is making a good point that she made an effort to pay the balance --FREAKING LIAR! I DID NOT MAKE AN EFFORT, I PAID IT! I PAID IT $300 MORE THAN OWED! documents filed, so -- rigged by artificial intelligence! to help the dishonest judge and plaintiff! There was no argument about "making an effort to pay the balance - Bradley claimed all along she paid $300 OVER the balance)
147. Bradley: Well, they - you should dismiss the case, Your Honor! This statement was segmented with the judge's response prematurely, to take it out of context and allude to the Motion To Dismiss to be Bradley's motion when it was the plaintiff's lame motion to dismiss counter claim
148. Judge: I'm not dismissing the case. HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY THAT HERE. I WAS STILL TALKING.
149. Bradley: I've already argued it. I submitted my motion - my counterclaim, all of that! So he had opportuity to ---ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DELETED PART OF WHAT I SAID - any purchasing history. He did not! He chose not to - so that was his choice. This case should be ruled in my favor because of that!
150. Judge makes a popping sound, says nothing
151. Bradley: They're not being diligent. They're not being forthright. This case has no merit! He's not even a Michigan attorney! Yet they use a Pro Hac Vice appearance on this case! And it's not his juris number, nor is it Moylan's juris number.
152. Judge: Your motion to dismiss has no legal basis
153. the freaking motion to dismiss counterclaim was what was marked to be heard - this was crafted with a boost from AI to go along with their criminal agenda, aka Devil's Chessboard, of FRAUD to include using a ganging-up on Bradley approach!
154. Judge: I deny your Motion To Dismiss - the counterclaim you filed.
155. Welcome to AI! Why the hell would Bradley motion to dismiss her own counterclaim and certainly would have said WTF to the judge at this time!
156. Bradley: I'd like to know why you say there's no legal basis to dismiss - either inserted by AI or Bradley was holding the judge accountable for twisting words- I didn't motion to dismiss. I motioned to rule in my favor for the counterclaim, which would be an automatic dismissal of his claim, certainly.
157. Judge: Well, on your counterclaim, you have 350 pages of documents that are not relevant to this case.
158. Bradley: They are certainly relevant! I included the law, I included documents, emails from True Accord, I included emails to- my response to True Accord. As well as Resurgent. None of which LVNV refer to in Anything! None! They're frauds! They're not referred to True Accord - they've not referred to Resurgent - they've not referred to any other company this missing words emails telling me that I owe on an Amazon account which I did not owe. I paid off that card! Like I said, the last time I purchased I made a purchase - was in 2014. At no point would they even interract with me and show me their version of purchases. I even submitted to the court my letter of 2017 and I think it was attached to the objection to dismissal but it was definitely attached to one of my recent pleadings - and it was a letter to Amazon emphasizing I sent a 39 page history of payments and purchases - do they provide that as a response? NO!! They wouldn't even respond to it back then! So I said there's no solution back then. No solution! And I already paid off what was due. I stopped making purchases. So it's all there, Your Honor! He didn't contest it, yet you're gonna give him more time to do what? Make up stuff? I mean, yeah, I have a right to be mad. This has cost me tremendous amount ot time,stress, money. It cost me $50 just to create a document and I had to even get it sent back to me because I found tons of typographical errors that I didn't make. And it's all because of tricks on the computer - through technocrats that were hacking it. You know. I'm just - this is just terrible. This is just a terrible case!
159. Mason: I'm sorry Sir SHE DIDN'T EVEN SAY THAT HERE. HAD, SHE ....
160. completely out of place here and typical of AI - had she said that, I would asked her what the hell she was talking about!
161. Bradley: They had their time! This woman ..
162. referred to like this because I disputed who the hell she was, Attorney Me who was in the same room with Bardos, and now becomes an Account Manager who has no legal right to prosecute yet claims she is prosecuting in her testimony!
163. ... didn't even sign any documents. Why is she being a witness? I contested the woman that did sign a document who had no reference to her competency. missing words information, her phone number, no nothing and yet she claimed to be an expert and she referred to herself as a media specialist. A media specialist! So how can any of this have any substance?
164. Judge: repeatedly interfered with inaudible sounds obviously directed to Bardos who could unfairly see on a screen - yet Bradley continued to talk as much as she could
165. Judge: $536.
166. Bardos: Your Honor ----Quarter to 11 -inaudible - statement
167. He probably said that to infer the hearing took place in the morning, yet they pushed it out to the END, 1/2 hour before the court closed!
168. Judge: I enter judgment in favor of LVNV - HE GETS PAID A SIX FIGURE INCOME TO BE A CROOK!
169. Bradley: That is wrong! I said you don't even care about the fact that there's no purhases - you don't care about anything! This is fraud! Completely fraud! And the military affidavit is fraudulent as well! You can't steal money! You can't collaborate with people and steal money from good people that pay their bills! This company is fraudulent! They have an enormous reputation for being frauds! Here you say you're going to continue the case and I said they had their day and now you're just gonna rule in their favor just because you feel like giving me a hard time! Because I'm a targeted person! That's all this is about! I'm a targeted person!
170. no more could be saved - reached 60 minutes.