lets see if this will clear things up for everyone about the notes end so the wild speculation can end because it is really quite simple
when the suit was filed there were 4 notes. 60k, 8k, 12,493k and a debt purchase from Kalisky for 60K note and then a subsequent affidavit of damages for 163k approx.
The only mistake was a scrivenors error occurred and the wrong Debt purchase amount from Kalisky was used as there was 2 of these done with him but one had been settled already.
Immediately a new affidavit of damages was created for the correct amount of $105k plus fees accrued default interest etc...
When the 60k purchase from Kalisky was filed it also was an error because it really was a 50k face value note with a payback of 60K which is where the 60K amount came from,
The lawyer had been waiting for discovery from the defendant and chose to file the scrivenors error at the same time as our answer to the defendant motion to quash as is his right to do
in such motion you will notice the correct 25k note which was supplanted and filed with the court and the reason for the 60k withdrawal.
I know it seems complicated but really it isn't. The notes actually total are: 60k, 8k, 12,493k and the correct scrivener error note of 25K which equals 105k plus interst and fees isd where the 136k comes from and matches 100% and is consistent. I am sorry it doesn't fit into some posters wild theories but the facts are the facts.
All of these notes have also had proof of payments to the company filed and attached with them as well.
Follow it and it will all make sense. a lawyer does things his way and files what and when he wants and certainly not to satisfy some poster on a message board. When it became apparent that the defendant would not provide any discovery or proof of repayment of any kind or any documentation to back up their assertions then the lawyer filed everything in a timely manner so now anyone who has been posting for the past months that the lawsuit is a scam and someone is trying to collect and sue on already settled debts is FLAT WRONG and now the courts will decide and judge.
I am sure even the most cynical poster can see how easily this mistake occurred especially because the lawsuit was originally filed by the plaintiff Pro se because it was as simple contract dispute case which is easily ruled upon with the proofs.
