0:13 Hey, Brian Eileen. Looks like it's just us right now. 0:17 I'll do it. 0:20 All right. John, there's a problem with the website, and then that might be why there's nobody here. 0:25 Because normally, I go to the, the appointment scheduling section, where all my point was in, I guess, the...

Hey, Brian Eileen. Looks like it's just us right now.
I'll do it.
All right. John, there's a problem with the website, and then that might be why there's nobody here.
Because normally, I go to the, the appointment scheduling section, where all my point was in, I guess, the Zoom link there, OK. It's not showing up.
The appointment scheduling section is not showing up either on Safari or Chrome. OK, I send a message to an OK.
Yeah, appreciate that.
Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure, She'll let me know what's going on there.
I don't see anything. I don't even know where is it normally in the bottom of the page? Yeah, the input is a very last link on the page. OK, so I see the links. So maybe, I remember my, in my browser history, or when it shows you, you, would think I would know all there, I don't well, thinking.
Yeah, thank you for showing me, But, anyways, I'm going to record this, and it's kinda nice if we have interaction, but I really self conscious about talking about this stuff because sometimes I know that it's so dry and boring, but you know, it's just, I have conversations with people over the week and I just figured, OK, well, maybe this will help somebody else.
So, I'm going to talk about a couple of concepts right now, and then certainly, we can do Q&A or talk about something.
Let's you guys want to ask me something right now, I don't want to make your way.
Anybody got any questions before I get started?
You can always do that.
Cool. Alright.
So, let me start with that.
Got a few more people joining. Cool. Alright.
So, I wanted to share a screen here, so, thanks for joining again, phase one, October 13th, and I did the other ones downloaded the video we did last week. I just haven't distributed yet. I'll put it up on YouTube, and I'll probably give you guys the link.
Um, anyways, so I wanted to show how I look at financial risk that's really exciting, and different different types of clients. So, like a person with a civil lawsuit, credit, card debt, unsecured, debt collection, that sort of thing. It maps out into lots of other situations where, you, know, you might have, you might be getting sued, but for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. It's an unsecured debt or it's someone made a claim money for something, OK, What I'm going to show you here is how I look at it.
I look at it very harshly. I would say it's, I'm just looking at it.
In terms of you having money and someone else getting, or trying to get it without your permission. And then I don't care about any other thing. That's just how I look at everything. And so if you don't want someone else to have the chance of getting it, that's my job's to make sure they cannot. And what many people miss even lawyers is they miss that.
Uh, you know, having a fancy named legal structure or strategy or something like that.
There isn't such a thing, then completely disregarding the rules of civil procedure because when it comes to taking someone else's property, the modern civil society for the most part, you know that with with few exceptions, we're going to have to go to the court because we've given the court the monopoly on access to the police power. They are the gatekeeper to the police power, the police power being the ability to living on property.
I'm not saying you have to go shoot somebody or arrest somebody. I'm just saying, police power includes the IRS letting something. It includes a wage garnishment, OK? That is the exercise of the state's police power.
So, to get there, you have to follow a set of rules and express a claim to the court and then you have to get approval and permission. You have to basically pass this gauntlet, some unexplained, a couple of things.
Then there's another one that I want to talk about, which is planning ahead, right?
So, if you're running a business or managing an asset, or a collection of assets, let's call it a portfolio, or something.
There are similar considerations beyond, no, a corporation and going to an attorney, and having the attorney write a corporation or register a corporation.
That's not actually, I mean, that's part of the process, but there's a, there's a deeper understanding that you're not gonna get from an attorney. I've got to criticize attorneys. I'm sure you guys are OK with that. So, let me, Let me do a screen share here. Just get right into this.
Alright, So what you're seeing is, I'm going to show you two documents here, And, excuse me, for looking up into outer space. Because I've got two monitors here.
But basically, this is you guys can see it. All right, let me know scream if you can.
So, here's a debt collection. And as you can see, it's a lawsuit in Pennsylvania. This is just a reason why I just, I'm helping somebody with.
And then, here's, I just, you know, sanitized it so it's uh the generic version of my response.
OK, now, I, I have a response that this is a modified version of my other response my other response has to do with lawsuits like this that have exhibits like credit card agreements or that look like credit card agreements. So, this is a version of that, because, as you'll see here, this person is being sued.
And so, to get all this, you know, formality, they have this notice to defendant.
Whatever saying, you have to show up at a hearing which we do if we want to fight the case, and I'm going to show you the technical details, I want to discuss the rules a little bit.
But I want to give you the real understanding of how we're going to deal with this.
And we're not going to rely on the court Although I'm going to show you the technical aspects of the court because You need to understand.
What's going on with documents. So? many times? I get calls from clients and they go I have a court date, and I'm like, OK.
Do you want some help or What? does that mean, you know, a court date?
Is it a hearing on what they go?
I don't know, and I go read the Notice, What does the note to say, It's a notice of hearing on a person's motion, OK? What kind of motion, OK, now, we can deal with it, OK, So, I want you to be in tune here, instead of just going, oh, it's a document with words on it, OK?
So, you see here, there's this these, you know, couple of pages that these are the technical formalities all the way to get into the court, and you've got, you know, the computer at the clerk of the courts assigns the judge and the address of the court see here, each state's three all this stuff, OK.
The case denbigh Redacted and all that.
So there's a hearing on Halloween at 9 30 in the morning, as it sounds pretty scary, right?
We only have, I think we already did the response, but here's, I think I've already filed it anyways. I'm gonna show you our. So here, we get into the civil complaint.
So, look here. You can see this right here in the first paragraph, OK, this is the entire complaint.
So what's happened over the last 30 years, and I've seen this when I started in the nineties, you wouldn't see a case. You wouldn't see this kind of language, but look what they're doing.
They're saying, OK, the plaintiff is the successor, an interest of a credit account, well, first of all, there's no such thing as that, but they could be the assessor or an interest of a creditor, OK.
The credit account was issued to defendants by this bank, right?
And that's supposedly the original crash, so you have like 4 or 5 allegations in that first sentence.
Then you then they're saying the defendant receive and use money. Or no, he just said he accepted and used the account to benefit.
How big is that?
That could be anything, right? Could be a life insurance account.
This account isn't default.
Due to defendants, failure to make payments.
Well, it doesn't say what the default date was. It doesn't say what the credit terms were.
This is what I'm thinking when I'm reading a complaint of this nature.
What specific terms, default? What does that mean? I mean, for all, we know the credit terms, there were no default terms, which doesn't make sense. But what if the credit terms were you only default, if you hadn't paid for 20 years, But we don't know that, right? We don't know.
Judging by this complaint here.
This is it, this one paragraph.
We don't know if the account itself is beyond the statute of limitations, Right. So if we're to respond, and we don't know that, and we just fancy, forget that.
And we start arguing the case, Will we just kind of wave's something, didn't we?
We answered to our own detriment, because the complaint was, I would say it's insufficient, I would say it doesn't allege enough facts so that I can answer or respond in a way that's not against my own interests.
Now, I know that all these of these, these claims, these complaints are based on an adversarial system. However, you still have to have an adequate complaints so the judge can take jurisdiction.
If you don't see enough things, the judge literally cannot hear the case.
And, what's interesting is, let's say, when I argued this case, it was passed the statute of limitations. And let's say, I got a ruling that was against me, right.
And I never argued, which is what's called latches.
I never argued that the claim was expired under the State's statute of limitations, which might be four years and just guessed.
Um, and so, what would happen is, if, let's say, I discovered it later, let's say, I get into, I know they're trying to collect against me, now. I get scared, and then I go get some research, or hire an attorney, or I get some more information.
And I discovered that I should have argued, um, the plaintiff didn't have the right to sue because of the statute of limitations. It's called latches.
That's a jurisdictional question and I would be able to reverse the judgement and get money back if they'd collected anything.
And so this increases the cost of litigation. In fact, it bogs down the courts, right? So this is important. The pleading has to be sufficient has to have sufficient back. So first of all, there was no allegation about credit here.
I mean, you kind of have to surmise that from what's being said, I mean, L V, and V is not even a creditor, right? If a debt collector.
So, then, you got these two attorneys, why does it take two attorneys to do this? I don't know.
Um, and I would suspect that elvie Envy probably is owned by these attorneys or smartphone, so they're acting in their own interests.
So, so, that's the complaint, right?
So, what we can do is, without regard to anything else, I'm going to tell you, you just, here's how you answer it, OK. This is how you interact with them.
This is a lawsuit in which you can respond. And there's something called responsive, pleading, mean anything as a responsive pleading Well, we're going to do with a motion to dismiss.
We're going to say I'm going to admit everything in the complaint and I'm going to say that the case should be dismissed because there weren't enough facts alleged in the complaint and that it's inhibiting my ability to justly answer so that I'm not going to answer to my own prejudice or unnecessarily increase the cost of litigation. And so this is the kind of technical understanding the judges look at or attorneys should understand.
And really, attorneys have been condition to be very lazy, because judges really like I like to say, wipe their nose for the attorneys. The judges take care, but they, they clean up the mess because the attorneys have gotten quite lazy. I mean, just look at the complaint. It's a four Senate's complaint really with. That's not even if it's not even including the sufficient facts, OK. And so basically these attorneys are just making up a claim and using the court to write a check.
They should have a higher burden of proof, but they don't because they widdled away at the rules of civil procedure over the years.
And so, what we have is, OK, this complaint here, there are pleating requirements and I don't know that this meets the pleading requirements.
But I'm just going to say they think it does and so the planning requirements are and have to require certain things to be set.
So, I'm going to come back and say hey, I'll admit everything on there but the court really doesn't have jurisdiction and here's how I'm going to say the court doesn't have jurisdiction.
Because the complaint fails to state a cause of action, or claim upon, which really it can be granted.
OK, that is how you say the court does not have jurisdiction, and they're subject matter jurisdiction, and persona, and things like that. I'm not going to get into all that stuff. I just speak generally.
I also made a general appearance, I'm sorry, a special appearance. OK, so, you may want to do that.
I don't know if it's that important, but I've never seen and turn the case any, which way, but I kinda like to say, I'm gonna make a special parents, that is, I'm not going to make a general parents and say, the court has jurisdiction. I'm gonna make a special versus a court, just so you know, there's a good chance here that, excuse me, you don't have jurisdiction. And before I actually get involved in this party, I'm gonna give you a chance to review that and maybe dismiss and save us all much time.
That's why I'm making a special appearance.
This is what I'm going to say. Millimeter, This is my motion to dismiss.
I'm going to say that, let's assume that everything in the complaint is true, and that's what you have to do when you file a motion to dismiss, you have to assume, or act as if, are, all, well, pleated facts are assumed to be true. We're just going to say, here, I'm saying, you just didn't add enough facts.
OK, so the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the successor of interest to another creditor, which I kinda like, it's not exactly correct, but I'm just gonna get to the point here.
It failed, but the complaints still fails to allege.
Any supporting facts for that allegation, The complaint even fails to allege any credit agreement between the parties. Right?
Or any payment terms or due dates? establishing default, or what would constitute on timeliness?
OK, the complaint makes several allegations or references the account.
It fails to alleged supporting facts for any account of any kind What kind of account is this?
Is it a Vault service, is it a life insurance contract? is it what some other insurance? What is it?
It's an account. All right.
What are the if there are credit terms? What is the day to day account?
What are the terms of default right? The defendant is not even able to determined by the allegations whether or not the complaint is within the statute of limitations. But my point four. So, the defendant is unable to respond to these partial, a naked allegations which as a term I like to use. Or, if the, or if he does, it would be unfairly to his detriment.
OK, you can never be required to act in your own detriment openly like this, OK, Even though it's an adversarial system, and I like to have little formality djerba verification.
So, what this does is it allows me to respond to the complaint and avoid default, but not really be in court yet. We're not really in court yet until the judge denies the complaint. And then I answer it.
If this is denied, I'm going to have to answer. And 99% of the time, sometimes 90% of the time, courts are going to deny a motion to dismiss.
And if they do, you're gonna have to answer the complaint. That's the prompt process of how it works.
And if you ever want to know what the rules are, you can just go to the, go to this state county, right? Like, if we go back here.
It's not a Pennsylvania Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Lancaster, right?
So you go on the internet, and you search for the rules of civil procedure for Pennsylvania, it's going to be the same across the state, and then you're gonna have local rules for the counter.
And it's going to tell you what I'm telling you, right? So there we go. Now it's important, there's a little formality here you definitely want to sign. If you don't, it'll be stricken from the record or ignored, as if you defaulted to be careful on that. You should have the date here.
Now, there's there's an example, like I said, that send out. This is another example I just revised by always do because you know in this case there were no exhibits, look, here, there are no exhibits. They just basically just made a bunch of claims without any supporting anything, OK. An exhibit is an allegation and you would think an exhibit would be something that looks like the account either way it's and notice. I mean, I even forgot to even say in here, You didn't even send me a notice. I never heard you guys before. You know, but I don't care, because you can, you can kinda mess up here, and you don't have to be so well written. You could just say motion to dismiss. You, didn't state of cause of action.
Signed defended. You can actually do that.
And then it stops the case, OK? Then everything proceeds from there.
So why would I do this?
And let me just ask the question again by telling you this: Even though I'm going to do this, and even though they shouldn't even win, right?
The whole thing is a big Friday, because, as you guys know, what's going to happen is the judge is eventually going to grant the judgement. He's gonna give him the judgement.
I mean, every once in a while, I get a case where I win, but they just shout for another judge and they start over. The whole thing is still correct, but, let's say the judge grants. My motion to dismiss. What he's also going to do is order the order. The defendant to revise the answer or to the revised its can revise, is going to order the plaintiff to revise the complaints, are he's going to go to the plaintiff to revise or mend that pleading as they call it, K, Revise the complaint and do a better job of writing the complaint, OK! Which attorney should do?
That's what's going to happen and I'll hit him again with another motion to dismiss, I don't care.
And so, it'll go a couple of iterations and chances are, I mean, even if that's why I say the Judge will probably help them out at the guy messes up, you know?
So that's what happens. So what's going on here?
I'm going to call, I'm going to cause delay.
It's going to cost them $5000, $25,000, depending on how much I'm willing to write documents and, you know, spend time on this stuff.
And it's gonna, It's gonna cost time, it's gonna cost three months in a case like this. It's going to be 3 to 9 months OK before there was a determination in the case of, let's call it a summary judgement, which I'm not going to talk about today.
But before the cases resolved and before, the plaintiff gets the right to try to let me on things. So, what am I doing in the 3 to 6 months? And this is where I want to help people. This is where I really think that what I'm, what I'm doing, is effective. And, that is, I'm going to school my client. I'm gonna show him how to analyze, what risk is, and what risk is, is a list of things that can be taken if these guys win.
So, that means I have a personal bank account, well, that's a risk of flooding.
So, I'm, I'm, I keep my personal account, but I'm also going to to start using another type of account. Maybe it's a trust account or a corporate account or something that is suitable for what your users will be.
And, yeah, most of the time, I recommend an LLC, but I do like to find out what your needs are.
You might be a small business owner and also have a job, so, there's, there's things, or you might have a merchant account with the e-bay and still have a full-time career. You know, so, there are certain considerations that I want to have, so I want to set up the client so that he can going going forward.
He can manage cash flow and it's income and not have it levied. When the caches in his possession.
That's one aspect of it. The other risk is money from receivables, being like wages, for example.
W two wages, I'm talking about employment wages.
So in all states, but Pennsylvania, which is this is Pennsylvania, so he does not have a risk to a wage garnishment Or good they're All his risk is is going to be a bank account. Right? And we've already covered that, I think. So this guy has already covered. We don't even have to respond and that's that, that's the other is coming to get into as a cost of litigation or I'm gonna end with that.
So once I've gone through this whole review with the client, Do you have a stock account? You know, do you have like rental income, right, all these things.
I re title that if I have to so that, if the assuming these guys when they get nothing so they won, but they really didn't win, OK.
That is why That is what I want to give to people, OK.
They don't want to show them how to do what they were doing before where they were their whole life is based on good personal credit.
I'm gonna show them how to do those things that are important in their lives without good personal credit. These are these are things I do. I don't use good personal credit. I deliberately have bad credit, maybe I shouldn't.
But I really don't care, because I see that as a social credit, social engineering program, which is what I've been saying since the nineties. Nobody can relate to that until they're seeing what's going on right now.
So notice how I said, You can litigate this case, you can write documents, and you can respond and Yeah, you can cost them a few dollars and whatever.
This is an intelligent thing to do. But this is not where you win.
It's not were you effectively manage risk. I mean, I will do, I can't I can't resist. I'm going to have to answer. I just I just selected as rub it in to them, just criticize their laziness, OK?
But you don't have to do it if you're uncollectable, you can ignore this case, and you can then have a default.
I just, I just don't like to do that. But if you're my client, and you say, yeah, John, I really don't care, I'm busy. I'm making money over here. I don't care what those guys do ARMA uncollectable, or make me uncollectible. Yeah, I'll go with that. And then when it shows up in your credit, we can have another call about what I'm going to do on that.
So that's just a brief overview of dealing with getting sued.
And the reason why I like to explain these basic elements is so that, when you get something like that, I mean, I want you to have some intelligence on some schooling, some background on how to communicate in that situation.
So you're just not totally blown away and don't understand what's going on, what's going on is But the plaintiff is trying to get permission from the court to take your stuff You're going to write back with this and say not so fast Succor you're going to have some things to prove and you might have to revise your complaint because you lazy, OK?
This gives you guys a little power While that's going on, you can take your time because nothing's going to happen until 30 days after there's a judgement, OK, even if you appeal it.
Which I don't recommend in most cases.
It's, it takes a while, it takes months, OK?
So that gives you plenty of time to research and figure out what you want to do, Find out what your risks are, whatever money you have or whatever property, you have the right to spend or sell, is your risk.
If there's money that It looks like you have the right to spend yourself money or property, they can also take.
So let's say for example, your parents are Getting up in years and you're gonna, you're a sign on the account because they just rely on you to do manage money for them. And they're like 92 or something OK?
And your name's on that account.
It's a risk.
And this is a bad risk because now, you're a de facto trustee for your parents money, and you just brought risk into their situation, right?
So when you got something like this going on, that's another thing you want to withdraw from, you just want to manage your parent's account where they're only the signers. And you just manage the credentials.
You don't need to be a signer to manage your parents money in their bank account, OK?
You just need the credentials.
So now I'm gonna, I'm gonna stop about this. This is consumer type debt, OK, individual, even maybe small business, because sometimes small business is individual debt.
So, now I want to just make a couple references to speaking, generally here.
So, someone was talking to me today, and we're going back and forth. And he was asking about setting up a limited liability company or a company, some kind of corporations kind of business structure to manage a business he was buying. It is quite substantial. It's, you know, millions of dollars, OK, for this business.
And and so, he was conferring with an attorney about whether or not the corporate veil could be pierced. Everyone asked that question, and this is why I want to get into this. So, yes, the attorney is going to, yes.
He's going to tell you, yes, a candidate he's correct, but he makes it sound more disastrous than it really is.
Because it's attorneys almost always, and I should actually say it, always try to scare people.
Yes, you could be had your corporate veil pierced or whatever. And so, what happens is, you get scared.
And you think, Well, this guy is telling me this is probably the guy who can help protect me from it. And, No, they don't do that. Attorneys practice a tournament.
You guys have heard me say this before. They take property from want to give to another in the system. We have a feudalism fealty.
And you're the one he's going to take the property from and give to another and, yeah, that's your attorney doing that. That's what they do.
That's why they get you into a payment plan That's why that gets you to file bankruptcy. That's why that gets you into consolidation that debt settlement, OK.
So, why are corporations, corporate structures having the corporate veil pierced?
Many times it's because the attorneys set them up the way attorneys do.
They think it's OK.
And many times, it's because the person who had the corporate veil tears, or the corporation, that, where it happened, hired attorneys, one or more attorneys, who advised him a certain way that led to that situation.
In 30 years of my doing this work, and I'm not some kind of genius.
By no means, I've never had clients, Corp, peers, even when the risk was there, when I took on the case in the beginning, pull them out of it.
Always, And I've never had a situation. And that sounds unbelievable. Like, there's got to be somebody out there, you know? Well, OK, I'm gonna say, I could be wrong, and maybe there's somebody out there, they're just didn't want to tell me that an app. I doubt, that's true.
But, the reason why I believe it's effective, the way I do it, is because I'm looking at, like I just discussed with you, a little bit, about what happens in court.
Because, like I said, member, if you want to get people stuff, if you don't already have an agreement that allows you to do that, you have to get the Court to get involved, right?
Well, the governing set of rules.
It's going to be the rules of civil procedure, and this is another thing that people don't even look at, or consider an estate planning and asset protection, you look at any estate planning strategy, or asset protection, or even structuring businesses. And nobody's talking about the rules of civil procedure. Nobody knows about that. It's like, I love the people talking about, hey, I got this Panama corporation and the nominee director is and all this nonsense and then I point into the, for example, if you're in Panama doing that, trying to have asset protection, OK? I'll just point right to one rule.
1.3, seven.
Don't forget, No, I'm sorry.
It's real, 38, can look it up. It has to do with discovery, OK. It has to do with disclosure, and it has to do with discovery under order of the court, and the content powers of the court.
And so under all sets of rules of civil procedure there there are, there is the ability of creditors, or anybody that's called credit plaintiffs to use the rules of civil procedure and totally destroy.
That whole corporate structure you thought was so brilliant that you spend $2000 on or $20,000 on.
or that you have one million dollars of assets at risk.
Because you didn't understand that property rights are the, or the key.
And so it's a matter of changing your property rights, but at the same time, you don't want to get embroiled in litigation. And so this leads me to the, to the corporate structure. The first thing I'm gonna do in a business.
It's hopefully set up something to wear If your business, and I don't care if it's a $20 million or $200 million operation, and I'll tell you, most of my clients, I mean, I've never exceeded, probably. I would imagine.
My biggest net worth type client business owner is going to be somewhere upwards of $5 million net worth. It's not going to be a 50 million mid-level, nothing like that. But the strategies are the same.
So, if I can write something and advise my client to follow a certain method to, first of all, avoid the costs of litigation, the cost of needing to have an attorney to defend the corporation, in an event where the corporation is sued, then I'm probably going to wipe out over 90% of the risk.
Already talking about, why do I set up a corporation to prevent risk, manage risk, OK? A big risk there is cost of litigation because you can win all day long with the dream team of lawyers, in okasha quarter million dollars to win a case that was worth $35,000. Or it'll cost you a quarter million dollars to win a case. It was worth a million dollars, but still a quarter million dollars.
Just to win the case and the ******* that suit your company, can't pay the attorney fees. And so, you had to do it, right.
So, anyways, that is how I look at things, and then we get into, we said we decided on a corporate structure, we might, we might parcel out or separate out from the core business.
The core business would be something like, Everyone sees that the brand name and my corporation owns the brand name, and that's where it is. I'm just going to give an example.
OK, so this corporation has employees, and it has lease agreements, and credit agreements, and all kinds of things going on that you have with Business, OK, But it also processes payments, so I may want to take the payment processor, put it over here.
OK, and separate that out from a Corpus. Why? Well, because the payment processor may be the place where I'm exposed the most to litigation, costs of litigation, OK. I may want to have a customer contract.
That doesn't, it doesn't bind. My company, my core company, it binds a company and I'm going to deliver on that contract at my company.
My customer is going to be delighted and thrilled OK about his service and the service and the product he's getting from my company, but I do not need to make that service contract under an M M, involving my, my core company.
I can export the risk, if, if you want to call it, that, I can export that risk.
So if I have a risk where, it's my customer who's likely going to sue me, or maybe it's a vendor or supplier, well, I'm going to make those separate companies, possibly. Or separate contracts, You know. And I'm gonna take that away from my core business. What I'm going to do with my core business. Oh, I'm gonna use that to manage all the, You know, the routine costs, you know, employees and things like that. Now, if I got some dispute going on, or I gotta Workman's comp thing going on, well, fine. I'll leave that to the core company. It's not gonna mess with this over here, or maybe I want to set it up to where my brand recognition is not going to be tarnished. I've done that before, OK, where I separate that out, You get the idea. So when you talk about structuring and managing risk, you first have to identify the risk, and I'm gonna suggest to you the first risks to be cost of litigation. You don't want to get in court with having to have an attorney represent your corporation. Because you cannot represent a corporation court, they will not let you.
You have to have an attorney. So, costs litigation. Next one is, Well, let's describe the risk. I always ask the client, What is your biggest risk?
I don't know, being sued by who a creditor?
Well, OK, what kind of credit or do you have?
Is it a creditor that has you finally UCC when financing, you know, a security agreement, OK? That's a different kind of creature. We gotta deal with that differently. But, yeah, we can do it, We can deal with that. So that's how you do this.
You manage risk by first Identifying the risk and, just, John Jay Singletons Method is, My first risk is what everybody is when it's a corporation costs of litigation.
So, enough of that.
I'm going to open this up for questions.
I hope that was helpful.
Sorry, if it's dry and boring. That's the nature of the beast.
You guys wanna get a peek at this again, or it's just a one pager.
Yeah. Go ahead.
It's not dry and boring, right?
I mean, I don't understand this stuff, but But it's very useful. Suddenly have to deal with sometimes. I mean, it's like, you know, cut in the grass and stuff, fix my car and cares, but, Anyway, so, this is what it looks like, OK, This section of the document is called the caption.
This section of the caption is called a Court title, case number, right, the parties to the case Plaintiff Plaintiff is creditor, right. It doesn't matter. I mean, anybody suing anybody is the creditor.
then here's your This is important. If you don't have this part, they won't accept it. It'll get strict and so, and that's it and I'd like to do a verified motion to dismiss All. that means is, I'm gonna verify by saying that I'm found this in good faith.
That's all that means, and that's it. I mean, look at that one page. You want to do that. And that's just being educated.
Then, this is Bing.
A bunch of lazy's not knows arrogant lawyers. You don't even really.
It's so lame.
There are, these guys won't even know how to write a lawsuit if they're, if you gave a blank piece of paper, you know, they just wouldn't know what to do.
That's it, though, you guys can get a screenshot of that. And I had it, you know, this is what I have to rewrite. I kinda like.
I look at the pleading and I go what can I pick a part here?
Well, they didn't say they didn't say what the default terms were.
They didn't say that they had given me notice and I failed to respond. I forgot to mention that but that's OK. Any any old motion to dismiss will work. as long as you say, motion to dismiss. You don't have to be that sophisticated.
Anybody dealing with anything, anybody talk to some attorneys, if you can recall that.
When he felt kinda sick, when you left after the call, like, uh, that sounds scary.
Does that, you know, when, when a client telling me all this stuff about, you know, he can tell, you can tell, And I say, it sounds like you're afraid of, you know, some things. and that's fine. I mean, if you don't know something, you know, If my car is making a funny noise, I'm going to be afraid, because I don't know anything about cars. So, I just, I just hope I can make it to my mechanics. I understand that.
So then I always ask them, get out a piece of paper, and write down. Describe for me and for yourself, what it is that you fear. Do it right now, wait?
And I make them do it.
And the pen is like this, I know what they're like.
Because you don't know, that's what makes you afraid, because there's nothing, there's nothing concrete, but if you start writing something, what will happen is by the time you're finished writing, whatever it is, it comes out of your hand, OK?
It seems to make the fear go away. Why?
Because you just switched your major brain switch from the right brain, to the left brain, in this understanding, you should have a balance between both, But this is a trick.
I have clients do this at hearings, they have to be in court. So that keeps them rational.
So that way it gets rid of the fear we can act then.
So yeah, if you're, if you're looking at buying assets or something or investing in something, just be pragmatic, there are certain tell-tale things.
If you don't know how to be pragmatic, you connect with someone who's in that business.
So if it were me and I'm going to buy the grocery store, I've never done that before.
I would have definitely, I would probably have a set of lawyers that deal with corporate mergers, OK. Something like that. I don't know, I don't need a lawyer to help me with litigation. I need somebody who deals with no contracts, and things like that, And I'm probably going to also have, separately a business broker.
Someone with a separate point of view, You know, and I know, and I would have to probably rely on a lot of what they're telling me, but I would also know how to maybe confer with it, you know, get a second opinion on what I'm being told.
So, you don't, you don't ever have to be at a loss and be afraid.
When you can confer with people.
OK, oh!
All right, no comments, no questions.
You can you can ask and ask me is something that's unrelated.
I'm not trying to, No, it is nice to have it about one subject, but I'm happy to talk about anything else.
All right.
Well, I appreciate you all being on the call. I'm gonna end it.
Alright, and I'll just publish this on YouTube.
All right.
All right, guys, have a good week.
two, Thanks.


1. The discussion begins with technical difficulties in setting up an online meeting on a website.
2. The topic of conversation revolves around LVNV Debt Collection Lawsuits and how to respond to them.
3. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the rules of civil procedure in cases of property disputes or debt collection.
4. The speaker then provides a detailed explanation about the structure of court documents and the need to understand what’s happening with them.
5. Examples of improper or incomplete lawsuits are mentioned, such as those missing key information about the debt or the credit terms.
6. A warning is given about the laziness of some attorneys and how they can misuse the court system to their advantage.
7. The speaker proposes making a “special appearance” in court, arguing that the court may not have jurisdiction, thus saving everyone time.
8. It’s suggested that people should take time to understand their potential risks, such as what can be taken from them if the lawsuit goes against them.
9. The speaker shares that often, legal cases might not end in the defendant’s favor, and it may take time to handle such a situation, making it crucial to manage risks effectively.
10. Finally, the speaker discusses the idea of structuring and managing risk, which involves identifying risks, with the cost of litigation being the first risk to consider.

Leave a Reply