I already pointed out in my objection to the Pacific Bell motion to dismiss that Iljas completely misrepresented the facts about this phone bill and why it went to collections.
But I hadn't realized that his omitting facts is just as important.
Mr. Zulkifli Iljas declared in his affidavit:
“On or about January 12, 1998 the account was assigned for collection to Bay Area Credit Service, a California corporation. Thereafter, on or about February 13, 2003, Ms. Baker’s unpaid bill was packaged with other unpaid customer bills and sold to American Agencies, a California corporation.”
Mr. Iljas should have mentioned the assignments to Professional Recovery (settled for documentation and statutory FDCPA damages) and the subsequent assignment to defendant American Agencies. Mr. Iljas did not mention these assignments to collection agencies for collection at all in his declaration.
Is it perjury because he failed to mention the assignments?
What are the standards?
I'm escpecially offended because Judge Broomfield wrote:
"In her motion for reconsideration, Baker argues that Pacific offered no evidence to substantiate how American could not have been Pacific's agent. Motion (doc. 130) at 2. This claim is not only untrue (since Pacific rebutted the agency relationship theory with the declaration of Zulkifli Iljas (doc. 120) at 7), a declaration which is admissible evidence), it misses the point. ... "
I can't find the rebuttal!!!! I'm considering ordering the filed declaration just to find out whether we're all looking at the same declaration.
Why is it that Iljas' declaration is worth more than mine and my many documents proving that American Agencies collected for Pacific Bell are worth nothing?
Do I have any legal recourse in Arizona against Mr. Iljas? He submitted the false affidavit in Phoenix federal court. I'm really tired of this crap, the ongoing lies and deception.
The Pacific Bell filings are scanned or posted in Word format.
Posted by Christine at March 6, 2004 08:57 PM