THIS IS DONE ON MY SAY-SO.
[re: meeting last week at Columbia University, to be followed with formal papers ]
[ here’s the poem, followed by the legal, explanatory prose ]
The bigger picture: The psycho-pathology of my adversary.
He is always trying to put power in someone else’s hands, so he can manipulate:
“Because the judge said-so”
“Because the doctor said-so”
NO.
In this instance, it is because the STUDENT, ME, said-so.
The law is written,
When there is a dispute,
Believe the student,
Not the school.
I am relieved of the burden of proving the school lied.
Here, my word alone, is good enough.
I am taken, at my word.
The big picture
Brig. Gen. Patrick Finnegan, West-pointer, lawyer, academic dean, knows I am telling the truth.
-Here’s a synopsis of a recent meeting, to be followed with formal papers, at Columbia University, with respect to Janice Bennett, and my student loan.
-With respect to my student loan, I do not have to prove that Janice Bennett lied.
-I do not have to compel her testimony.
-I do not have to compel any one’s testimony, on this issue.
-The way the law is written, when there is a dispute, believe the student, not the school.
-This is done on my say-so.
-see, section 682.206-Due diligence in making a loan, for ease of reference, from the Code of Federal Regulations.
-When the lender [ = the bank ], delegates “loan-making” duties to the school, like completing and having the borrower [ = the student, me ] sign the promissory note, then, the lender [ = the bank ] may rely in good faith upon the statements of the borrower [ = me, the student ] made in the loan application process, but not rely upon statements made by the school in that process.
-In other words, my word, alone, is good enough.
-This is simple common sense.
-The school wants money, and the school will falsify paperwork to give to the bank to get money, as happened to me.
-I was manipulated and lied to in the loan-making process. I was bullied into filling-out Part A of my promissory note, which consisted of, essentially, name, address, phone number, references, and how much money do you want to borrow.
-Then, my incomplete promissory note was taken away from me, and behind my back, without checking with me, my school falsified Part B, my eligibility to borrow, see box 21, I was not a “full-time” student [ I was not doing what all the other full-time students were doing ] and I was not eligible to borrow. I was not eligible to borrow as a “part-time” student either.
-Yeshiva took $18,500.00 for classes it never provided to me. Over a ten-year repayment period that amount with interest would come to almost double the amount I borrowed [ 3/24/09---Eric Summerville, experienced attorney, never worried about minor details, like a typo or two, he got his court papers in on time, and corrected minor errors later, apparently, this is SOP, in New Jersey ].
-I discovered the falsified promissory note in June 2005, one month after Judge Patterson ruled against me. Based on newly-discovered evidence, I have the right to amend my complaint. An amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, and I can quote the judges in the Second Circuit on this.
-There is a two-year fraud discovery rule in civil cases, which means the clock started ticking, for statute of limitation purposes, when I discovered the promissory note, in June 2005.
-For criminal prosecution there is a one-year fraud discovery rule, which means, the clock started ticking, for statue of limitation purposes, when I discovered the promissory note, in June 2005; the Bronx DA lied to Congressman Weiner about this. The word “fiduciary” is explicitly used with respect to the school’s obligation to the student.
The bigger picture: The psycho-pathology of my adversary.
He is always trying to put power in someone else’s hands, so he can manipulate:
“Because the judge said-so”
“Because the doctor said-so”
NO.
In this instance, it is because the STUDENT, ME, said-so.
The law is written,
When there is a dispute,
Believe the student,
Not the school.
I am relieved of the burden of proving the school lied.
Here, my word alone, is good enough.
I am taken, at my word.
The big picture
Brig. Gen. Patrick Finnegan, West-pointer, lawyer, academic dean, knows I am telling the truth.
-Here’s a synopsis of a recent meeting, to be followed with formal papers, at Columbia University, with respect to Janice Bennett, and my student loan.
-With respect to my student loan, I do not have to prove that Janice Bennett lied.
-I do not have to compel her testimony.
-I do not have to compel any one’s testimony, on this issue.
-The way the law is written, when there is a dispute, believe the student, not the school.
-This is done on my say-so.
-see, section 682.206-Due diligence in making a loan, for ease of reference, from the Code of Federal Regulations.
-When the lender [ = the bank ], delegates “loan-making” duties to the school, like completing and having the borrower [ = the student, me ] sign the promissory note, then, the lender [ = the bank ] may rely in good faith upon the statements of the borrower [ = me, the student ] made in the loan application process, but not rely upon statements made by the school in that process.
-In other words, my word, alone, is good enough.
-This is simple common sense.
-The school wants money, and the school will falsify paperwork to give to the bank to get money, as happened to me.
-I was manipulated and lied to in the loan-making process. I was bullied into filling-out Part A of my promissory note, which consisted of, essentially, name, address, phone number, references, and how much money do you want to borrow.
-Then, my incomplete promissory note was taken away from me, and behind my back, without checking with me, my school falsified Part B, my eligibility to borrow, see box 21, I was not a “full-time” student [ I was not doing what all the other full-time students were doing ] and I was not eligible to borrow. I was not eligible to borrow as a “part-time” student either.
-Yeshiva took $18,500.00 for classes it never provided to me. Over a ten-year repayment period that amount with interest would come to almost double the amount I borrowed [ 3/24/09---Eric Summerville, experienced attorney, never worried about minor details, like a typo or two, he got his court papers in on time, and corrected minor errors later, apparently, this is SOP, in New Jersey ].
-I discovered the falsified promissory note in June 2005, one month after Judge Patterson ruled against me. Based on newly-discovered evidence, I have the right to amend my complaint. An amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, and I can quote the judges in the Second Circuit on this.
-There is a two-year fraud discovery rule in civil cases, which means the clock started ticking, for statute of limitation purposes, when I discovered the promissory note, in June 2005.
-For criminal prosecution there is a one-year fraud discovery rule, which means, the clock started ticking, for statue of limitation purposes, when I discovered the promissory note, in June 2005; the Bronx DA lied to Congressman Weiner about this. The word “fiduciary” is explicitly used with respect to the school’s obligation to the student.
No comments:
Post a Comment