Print

[112233]

9 months between the answer to the complaint and the next action. Is that normal?

[onthefence]

First off.  Congratulations to Doug Fuller on his first win!  I hope his work in preparation for this case will significantly benefit future cases.

OMG, this whole blog post is boils down to the fact that they won a case simply due to the fact that the defendant did not show up to court and Prosper didn't have to prove anything except that they had a piece of paper with the right number on it.

If I am not mistaken, Prosper has had their rear ends handed to them before even with no shows in the past.  It's good to see they actually won a case.  Even if the defendant did not show up.

As far as assets, if the person has a house, in many states, a lien (with interest) can be placed on the property.  The property can not be sold until the debt is settled.

[Cushie]

Reading the court's info and it looks to me (IANAL and don't really understand 90% of what I'm reading) that the defendant is fighting the judgment.  Judgment was received on 10.06.09 and on 10.08.09 she sent in a NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, PROOF OF SERVICE, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, NOTICE - OTHER (TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT), PROOF OF SERVICE (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY).  I so hope one of our trusty lawyers can explain that.

[Cushie]

Doing more searching and it looks like she may be the recipient of more lawsuits.

http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Karen+M+Rozier (looks like Prosper and Wachovia filed against her the same day.  Docket numbers are one number off.

[Mtnchick]

Reading the court's info and it looks to me (IANAL and don't really understand 90% of what I'm reading) that the defendant is fighting the judgment.  Judgment was received on 10.06.09 and on 10.08.09 she sent in a NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, PROOF OF SERVICE, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, NOTICE - OTHER (TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT), PROOF OF SERVICE (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY).  I so hope one of our trusty lawyers can explain that.

Sounds like she's following the Creditboards "Baffle them with BS" instructions 

[ira01]

Reading the court's info and it looks to me (IANAL and don't really understand 90% of what I'm reading) that the defendant is fighting the judgment.  Judgment was received on 10.06.09 and on 10.08.09 she sent in a NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, PROOF OF SERVICE, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, NOTICE - OTHER (TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT), PROOF OF SERVICE (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY).  I so hope one of our trusty lawyers can explain that.

Sounds like she's following the Creditboards "Baffle them with BS" instructions 

That's what it looks like to me too.  Certain kinds of cases can be "removed" from state court to federal court by a defendant.  The most important types of such cases are: (1) those where the plaintiff is suing under federal law; and (2) those involving plaintiffs and defendants of different states AND more than $75K in controversy.  Here, Prosper sued under state law, not federal law, and even if Rozier is not a California resident (which I think is doubtful), clearly there is not more than $75K at stake.  Thus, I can't imagine any legitimate basis for removal.  Moreover, removal must generally be done within 30 days, which clearly it was not here.  Therefore, although I haven't tried to look at her notice of removal, my gut tells me that there is approximately a 99.99999% chance that it is complete and utter bullshit.  Most likely, the federal court will quickly figure that out, "remand" the case back to state court, and impose monetary sanctions on Ms. Rozier for wasting everyone's time. 

[pacino58]

Amazing that Prosper is deleting posts again (on this blog), the individual that had the post from Ohio and called Prosper Bernie previously had two posts and now only has one.  Prosper never changes.

[Xenon481]

I submitted the following comment.  We'll see if it gets approved.

We are supposed to be excited that Prosper won a case simply because the defendant didn't show up and that the defendant doesn't have any money to pay anyways?

Wow, they approved my comment. 

[pacino58]

Open Question to Prosper (Doug Fuller) on the NAT Loans, since he reads here maybe he will see this one:

Not sure if this specific NAT loan has been addressed yet, but still something that needs to be addressed.

If the loans were specifically handpicked by Prosper, why would Prosper sue an individual that appears to be homeless?

In April 2008, Prosper filed their complaint against Roger Treskunoff in the San Francisco Superior Court.  (All public information so I can disclose here).  This was eventually dismissed (without prejudice) by Prosper.  From the complaint filed, the address provided by Prosper is 290 Turk Street, San Francisco.

A quick google search of the address determines the address to be the Central City Hospitality House, who has served the homeless community since 1967.

http://www.hospitalityhouse.org/

1) if this individual was homeless when they took out the loan, did this loan get verified (likely not), the address is even in their own city!
2) once the complaint was prepared and it was discovered the individual provided an address, why would you choose to incur the legal fees to sue this individual
3) if these loans were handpicked, was there any due diligence completed to verify any information?

I have no loans that were included in the NAT loans, but makes you wonder.  If this one has been addressed, I apologize for bringing it back up again.

[Fred93]

Prosper filed their complaint against Roger Treskunoff ...quick google search of the address determines the address to be the Central City Hospitality House, who has served the homeless community since 1967.

did this loan get verified

Prosper's address verification works by mailing a postcard, and requiring the borrower to enter a number from the card into a web page.  This should work fine at hospitality house.  No problem.

why would you choose to incur the legal fees to sue this individual

Because clearly they didn't know that his address was a homeless shelter. 

[bamalucky]

Prosper actively shut down anyone playing sleuth too. It's amazing how much goodwill they burned through.

They didn't even have to pay anyone because we were playing scambuster for free & they shut it down EVERY time.

We saved a lot of loans. Remember Amex Black dude?

[Fred93]

Say, I wonder if this is the same Roger Treskunoff?

Article: Hayward community leader arrested
Article from:Oakland Tribune
Article date:September 30, 2005
Author: Ricci Graham, STAFF WRITER Copyright 2005 Oakland Tribune.

HAYWARD -- A candidate for the Hayward school board who lost a race for a seat on the City Council three years ago was arrested Thursday on suspicion of elder abuse and identity fraud, authorities said.

Roger Treskunoff, 51, also is being held on suspicion of credit card fraud and grand theft, said Lt. Dale Amaral, spokesman for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department

wait there's more...

Oct 31, 2005 11:57 pm US/Pacific
Former Alameda Candidate Arrested For Voter Fraud
(BCN) The Alameda County Sheriff's Office says former Hayward school board candidate Roger Treskunoff was arrested today for 40 counts of voter registration fraud and six counts of voter initiative fraud.

According to Sgt. Tom Madigan, Treskunoff previously pleaded guilty on Oct. 12 to one count of financial elder abuse after he used his 85-year-old mother-in-law's identity to create fictitious credit card accounts and charge more than $15,000 to support a gambling habit.