Maybe some of this will help:



You don't have a CONTRACT with these people. THEY have to prove that they are a party of interest in an agreement that YOU agreed to be a party to. Without a CONTRACT, original and unmodified, there is NO CLAIM.



Schmid, Inc. v. Zucker's Gifts, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1991, 766 F.Supp. 118. “…complaint will be dismissed…if plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.”



Without a contract, or proof that they are a party to an agreement with you, then they are not a holder in due course:



1) A holder who does not give value cannot qualify as a holder in due course. See: UCC 3-303;1(1).



2) The extension of credit is not the giving of value. See: UCC 3-303:0; Atkinson v. Englewood State Bank, 141 Colo 436.



3) Banks extend credit, not money. See: National Bank v. Atkinson, 55 Fed. Rep. 571.



Further:



There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge…the transferee takes it subject to the disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation makes it the subject of transfer by assignment. See: Badger v. Gilmore, 33 N.H. 361, 66 Am. D. 729; William R. Stank v. M.W. White, 172 Minn. Reports 390.



Further, “Money has value only by law…” Incitti v. Ferrante, 175 A 908. [Emphasis added.]



Something in here will probably be useful to you as well. Keep in mind that NONE of these collection firms are law firms...and that if they are acting as such that is also against the law.



USC Title 15. Sec. 1692, generally and more specifically herein.



Law firm regularly engaged in debt collection practices, and thus it qualified as a "debt collector" pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even though debt collection activity made up about one percent of volume of firm's cases and revenue, where firm consistently accepted at least 10 debt collection matters each year for several consecutive years. Silva v. Mid Atlantic Management Corp., E.D.Pa.2003, 277 F.Supp.2d 460.



Attorney for law firm which represented collection agency was "debt collector" and, thus, could be held personally liable under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even though law firm was limited liability company, where attorney was firm's sole attorney, developed debt collection practices, was author of generic collection letters utilized by firm and supervised all of firm's collection activities. Ditty v. CheckRite, Ltd., Inc., D.Utah 1997, 973 F.Supp. 1320. Consumer Protection 35



Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applied to lawyer regularly engaged in consumer debt-collection litigation on behalf of creditor client. Heintz v. Jenkins, U.S.Ill.1995, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 514 U.S. 291, 131 L.Ed.2d 395. Consumer Protection 10



Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, "debt collector" includes person in business, the principal purpose of which is collection of debts, person who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due another, and creditors who, in the process of collecting their own debts, use any names which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. Kempf v. Famous Barr Co., E.D.Mo.1988, 676 F.Supp. 937. Consumer Protection 10



"Debt collectors" covered by this section are those who regularly collect for others and not creditors of consumers even though debt is created between consumer and third person and subsequently assigned to a creditor such as a finance company if such assignment is made before default. Kizer v. Finance America Credit Corp., N.D.Miss.1978, 454 F.Supp. 937. Consumer Protection 10



Attorney whose practice was at least 80% in area of debt collection fell within definition of "debt collector" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and fact that attorney's filing of application for writ of garnishment was pure legal action did not alter this conclusion because attorney exemption was no longer part of FDCPA. Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1994, 15 F.3d 1507. Consumer Protection 10



Attorney retained by banks to represent bank card divisions in lawsuits based on delinquent credit card accounts was "debt collector" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, despite contention that attorney performed only legal work, since at least 70% of attorney's legal fees were generated from collection of debts, "principal purpose" of work was collection of debt, and filing of warrants constituted "indirect" means of debt collection. Scott v. Jones, C.A.4 (Va.) 1992, 964 F.2d 314. Consumer Protection 10



Attorney who regularly engaged in debt collection activities on behalf of clients was "debt collector" subject to requirements of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; attorney was not mere agent of creditor where collection letters attorney sent to debtors unequivocally stated that monies were to be sent to him directly. Crossley v. Lieberman, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1989, 868 F.2d 566. Consumer Protection 10



Collection bureau's minimal conduct of beckoning debtor to send payment to food store creditor qualified it to be a "debt collector" under this subchapter because it used the mails in a business the principal purpose of which was the collection of debts or regularly collected or attempted to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. In re Scrimpsher, Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1982, 17 B.R. 999. Consumer Protection 10



Purpose of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and harassing collection practices, while leaving collectors free to employ efficient, reasonable, and ethical practices in pursuit of their profession. Graziano v. Harrison, D.N.J.1991, 763 F.Supp. 1269, reversed in part, vacated in part 950 F.2d 107.



This subchapter was designed to safeguard consumers in their dealings with business. Blackwell v. Professional Business Services of Georgia, Inc., N.D.Ga.1981, 526 F.Supp. 535.



This subchapter was enacted by Congress to eliminate abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. Rutyna v. Collection Accounts Terminal, Inc., N.D.Ill.1979, 478 F.Supp. 980.



This subchapter was enacted to eliminate false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or harassing debt collection practices. Peasley v. Telecheck of Kansas, Inc., Kan.App.1981, 637 P.2d 437, 6 Kan.App.2d 990.



Enactment of this subchapter, which specifically prohibited all false, deceptive, misleading, unfair or harassing collection practices, was not evidence that such practices had not been prohibited by prior federal law; this subchapter merely supplemented the old law. State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc., Alaska 1980, 609 P.2d 520.



This subchapter is designed to protect consumers who have been victimized by unscrupulous debt collectors, regardless of whether valid debt actually exists. Baker v. G. C. Services Corp., C.A.9 (Or.) 1982, 677 F.2d 775.



Threshold requirement for application of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is that prohibited practices are used in attempt to collect debt. Mabe v. G.C. Services Ltd. Partnership, C.A.4 (Va.) 1994, 32 F.3d 86.



Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is strict liability statute, and consumer need only show one violation of its provisions to establish FDCPA claim. O'Connor v. Check Rite, Ltd., D.Colo.1997, 973 F.Supp. 1010.



Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires all debt collection letters to include a validation notice, which includes amount of debt, name of creditor, statement that debt's validity will be assumed unless disputed by consumer within 30 days, and offer to verify debt and provide name and address of original creditor, if consumer so requests. Lerner v. Forster, E.D.N.Y.2003, 240 F.Supp.2d 233.



If no debt exists within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and no other federal claims are brought by plaintiff asserting the FDCPA claim, there is no federal question and the action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Cook v. Hamrick, D.Colo.2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 1202.



The "least sophisticated consumer" standard is not precisely applicable to claims of harassment or abuse in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but the consumer protective purposes of the Act requires adoption of an analogous standard in harassment and abuse cases and such claim should be viewed from the prospective of a consumer whose circumstances make him relatively more susceptible to harassment, oppression or abuse. Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., C.A.11 (Ga.) 1985, 760 F.2d 1168. Consumer Protection 10



Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA's) "least sophisticated debtor" standard is lower than that of a reasonable debtor, and reflects the policy of the FDCPA to protect both shrewd and gullible consumers. Flores v. Shapiro & Kreisman, E.D.Pa.2002, 246 F.Supp.2d 427. Consumer Protection 10



Claims under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) are evaluated under a least sophisticated consumer standard. Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Companies, L.L.C., N.D.Cal.2002, 238 F.Supp.2d 1158. Consumer Protection 10



Although consumer suing debt collector for violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) venue provision did not introduce evidence of actual damages, consumer was entitled to award of $500 in additional damages under FDCPA as well as award of attorney fees and costs. Crawford v. Credit Collection Services, D.S.D.1995, 898 F.Supp. 699.





15 U.S.C. § 1692k - Civil liability



(a) Amount of damages





Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of--



(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;

(2)(A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000;



15 U.S.C. § 1692e - False or misleading representations



A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section





15 U.S.C. s 1692f - Unfair practices



A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section





15 U.S.C. § 1692g - Validation of debts



a) Notice of debt; contents



Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing--



(1) the amount of the debt;





15 U.S.C. § 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms



a) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.



(b) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this subchapter.





15 U.S.C. § 1692l - Administrative enforcement



(a) Federal Trade Commission





Compliance with this subchapter shall be enforced by the Commission, except to the extent that enforcement of the requirements imposed under this subchapter is specifically committed to another agency under subsection (b) of this section. For purpose of the exercise by the Commission of its functions and powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C.A. § 41 et seq.], a violation of this subchapter shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of that Act. All of the functions and powers of the Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act are available to the Commission to enforce compliance by any person with this subchapter, irrespective of whether that person is engaged in commerce or meets any other jurisdictional tests in the Federal Trade Commission Act, including the power to enforce the provisions of this subchapter in the same manner as if the violation had been a violation of a Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule.





Oklahoma Statutes Citationized

Title 21. Crimes and Punishments

Chapter 19

Section 554 - Attorney Buying Evidence of Debt-Misleading Court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every attorney who either directly or indirectly buys or is interested in buying any evidence of debt or thing in action with intent to bring suit thereon is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any attorney who in any proceeding before any court of a justice of the peace or police judge or other inferior court in which he appears as attorney, willfully misstates any proposition or seeks to mislead the court in any matter of law is guilty of a misdemeanor and on any trial therefore the state shall only be held to prove to the court that the cause was pending, that the defendant appeared as an attorney in the action, and showing what the legal statement was, wherein it is not the law. If the defense be that the act was not willful the burden shall be on the defendant to prove that he did not know that there was error in his statement of the law.





Oklahoma Statutes Citationized

Title 21. Crimes and Punishments

Chapter 13

Section 453 - False Preparation of Exhibits as Evidence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any person guilty of falsely preparing any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced as genuine upon any trial, proceeding or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, shall be guilty of a felony.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



R.L. 1910, § 2228; Amended by Laws 1997, H.B. No. 1213 c. 133. § 198, emerg. Effective Date Amended to July 1, 1999 by Laws 1998, c. 2 (First Extraordinary Session), §§ 23-26, effective June 19, 1998



LOAD THE GUN AND TAKE 'EM OUT!!!!!!!!