More on my Discover Card lawsuit

Introduction

On June 11, 2014, I made a public presentation of some of the ideas I've been posting on this blog. During that time, I wanted to read aloud the following summary of my judicial proceedings with Discover Card, which starts after the line of asterisks below. This includes material I've not previously shared on this blog. Among other things, I include the name of the judge who ruled in my favor, and my speculation as to why:

Judge Sheryl A. Pethers,
Circuit Court 1893 of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Chicago, IL)

Discover Card's law firm, cited below, is Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA.

The following is the entirety of the text I had intended to read to my audience. I never had the chance, though, since my audience of six abandoned me 15 minutes into my presentation. Oh, well, you can't win 'em all.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In October, 2009, I sent a letter to my credit card company, Discover Card. I said I would no longer be sending them monthly payments on my unpaid balance of $7700. Instead, I would be sending that money to the United Negro College Fund as reparations. US financial institutions such as Discover have benefited handsomely from the US slave trade, so you owe descendants of these slaves. But this is a debt you have never made any effort to pay. So I will be making reparations payments for you.

Discover turned my delinquent account over to a collection agency. I sent that agency a certified letter (with a copy going to Discover) saying, “If you take this case to court, I will confess to the state & federal IRS that I haven't submitted an income tax return for seven years. By the time they get through with me, there won't be any money left for you.”

Discover did take me to court and I decided to be my own lawyer. Even though I've never had any legal training. I ended up submitting 30 pages of written arguments before appearing before the judge on Nov. 23, 2010. She told me to meet with a Discover agent in the hall outside the courtroom to see if we could come to an agreement. After a few minutes into this meeting, the agent looked at me and said, “You're not going to pay up, are you?” I said, “I have been paying up all along – but not directly to Discover. I'm paying someone they owe, so in effect I'm paying Discover indirectly.”

We returned to the judge to say we couldn't come to an agreement. So she set a trial date of Apr. 5, 2011. But she gave me a heads up before I left, saying, “Based on what you've given me so far in your written material, I don't see how I can rule in your favor.” So I took that to heart and prepared 12 more pages of arguments, including several motions, which I quickly submitted.

One motion in particular ended up winning this case for me. I moved that Discover's lawyer be cited for contempt of court. As an officer of the court, their lawyer was duty-bound to turn me in to the IRS as soon as she found out I had broken the law by not filing tax returns for seven years. My certified letter to Discover and its law firm had informed them of my lawbreaking six months prior.

Four months later, on April 5, 2011, I stood before this same judge with Discover's attorney. She said, “Your honor, I had arranged for an expert witness to appear but he couldn't show up today.” The judge said, “Did you notify Mr. Searle in advance about this witness?” And she asked me, “Did Discover's counsel inform you of their intention to present a witness?” We both answered, “No.” The judge looked at me and said, “You win.” This whole exchange took less than two minutes, after which I sat down in the gallery with the other spectators.

Then I started thinking about what just happened. I thought, “Why would Discover need an expert witness against a deadbeat who refuses to pay?” Then it hit me – there was no witness. This was just a ruse to throw the case. Discover's law firm probably told Discover:

“We could get into a lot of trouble because we didn't turn Mr. Searle in to the IRS. And that might ultimately jeopardize our ability to recover the money he owes you. Not only that, but the judge could also get into trouble for this. She also knew about Mr. Searle's tax situation and did not report him to the IRS. So I suggest we find a way to throw this case and let Mr. Searle win on a technicality. The judge will see immediately what we're up to and she will rule in his favor. This is a win-win for everybody. Even for Discover. For even though you'll be out $7700, you will have helped get a judge out of a difficult situation. And there's nothing wrong with having a grateful judge on your side the next time Discover brings cases before this same judge.”

Take a look at page two of the handouts I provided. Block 8011 is checked which says:

□ Case Dismissed by Agreement of Parties/No Cost      □ with prejudice

“With prejudice” means that Discover can't make any future attempt to sue me for this money. By marking this block, the judge was doing Discover's lawyers a favor. She should have marked block 8005, “Case dismissed for want of prosecution.” But marking that would have made it seem that Discover's lawyers incompetently handled this case. She decided to spare them that embarrassment.

As for me? I'm still making payments to the United Negro College Fund even though the judge's final decision made it clear that I don't have to do this. That's a win-win for everybody, right?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com