Powerful Info To Aid You in Your Battle Against Debt Collectors

[TheIntelCritic]

EDITED BY MODERATOR
Material Stolen from:
http://www.carreonandassociates.com/...yourrights.htm

Giving back to the board. Here is some info regarding important Credit Acts. Read up!

CREDIT ACTS
-The Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968
-Understanding your rights
-Using State or Federal plus links to law
-Other Resources
-Who to complain to for which credit issue?

Consumers have rights under many different categories but probably one of the most powerful rights you have is the Consumer Credit Protection Act. In your war on credit errors and debt dealings you have in your hands the most powerful laws! When used, you can remedy almost any credit and debt problem because these laws give you so many reasons to question the validity of a debt and more. Under these statutes, you can literally find mistakes in credit reporting or debt practices somewhere. With all the laws and the mini statutes entangled within, it makes it very difficult for creditors/collectors to be 100% accurate and fair.

Many consumers have errors and have no idea what rights they have to ensure that those errors are corrected. These laws do little good if you don't use them. If you have 1/2 hour a day then you have time to read in full these Acts and put them to good use. Once you do, you will start to see the many areas that are afforded to you to question your debts accuracy. If all said and done, your debts are 100% accurate (rare) then you move on to negotiations to settle the debts in exchange for a better rating. Now doesn't that make sense more than "Amazing free credit repair secrets!" Don't fall for that and be scammed! Below are some of these wonderful laws written for you- the consumer. Below is all you need to question debts, repair your credit and become your own legal eagle.

[gldskr]

I've read in this site, this thread and other websites, that delinquent credit accounts are sold. This is false for the reasons we all know and understand. What is sold is the right of collection, which amounts to sending letters and phone calls, nothing more.

Perhaps if this was more firmly understood, the rest would more easily fall into place.

gldskr

[Sharing Lights]

Originally Posted by gldskr

I've read in this site, this thread and other websites, that delinquent credit accounts are sold. This is false for the reasons we all know and understand. What is sold is the right of collection, which amounts to sending letters and phone calls, nothing more.

Perhaps if this was more firmly understood, the rest would more easily fall into place.

gldskr

In theory - yes.

In practice, debt collectors contract with attorneys on consignment
and the latter give Consumers hell in courts before their judges,
wining about 95% of the time.


With that ratio, they have no reason to stop.

What is your suggestion?

[gldskr]

Originally posted by Sharing Lights
In theory - yes.

In practice, debt collectors contract with attorneys on consignment and the latter give Consumers hell in courts before their judges, wining about 95% of the time.

With that ratio, they have no reason to stop.

What is your suggestion?

In any game, the best offense is a good defense. In regards to alleged debt delinquencies this is woefully forgotten. Debt collection swine do not go after you simply because an alleged debt exists, they do so because there is an actual or assumed asset that can be attached.

Actual assets are real and have been verified by the DC and their intimidation factor is high with regard to the alleged debtor. Assumed assets are those supposedly held by an alleged debtor whose default balance is rather high. The modus operandi of the DC is the same in both cases, persistent harrassment of the victim until he relents.

The cure for the disease is rather simple, the forgoing of credit and its subsequent rating. Most people are hesitant to take this road and become fence sitters, talking the talk but failing to walk the walk, hence their predicament.

What I and others before me have suggested, is that the number one thing to do before battling the beast is to secure your assets. Any action taken before this is done is doomed to failure. If a real asset is secure all you've lost is a credit rating. If the asset is assumed the DC is on a wild goose chase and it may have cost you a little harrassment, something a new phone number won't resolve.

Number two is, do not engage the enemy on his terms. That is, forget about the FDCPA, the case law, the statutes, the codes, they do not concern you, but lead you into the den. Particularily of no use is the VOD, which may have worked in the past, but is useless today due to new legislation. A dunning letter is a de facto VOD and is not disputable.

The key, as it has always been, has been standing. But too many rush to the VOD to show them how smart they are, but in reality are proclaiming their ignorance. How does an entity provide a bona fide VOD unless they have the standing to do so in the first place? Of course, they don't, only the original creditor can do so. Obviously, the cart is being placed before the horse.

If you demand a VOD they will surely send you one which by statute you cannot dispute. If you demand that they have the standing to issue the VOD, that is another story, one which they cannot provide.

gldskr

[Sharing Lights]

Thank you for response.

How would you deal with the Standing then,
subject matter, I assume?


Keep in mind that DC do not appear in courts
but utilize local lawyers - debt collectors which,
often, even, obtain debt collection license,
when such is required.


Plus, corp. must be represented by an attorney,
in New York, at least by CPLR.

[gldskr]

Standing is, the rights to a remedy. Who has them? Who has title to the wrong where a remedy may be procured? Surely not the DC, his rights are limited to the collection contract only; the title to the wrong, if any, still exists with the original creditor and only he has the standing to sue.

If standing is given erroneously to the DC, the judge will allow it, as cogs will do. It is only downhill from there.

Only the real party in interest can bring suit. There is only one and it isn't worth it to them, that is why they sell their collection rights. A little bit of something is worth more than alot of nothing.

gldskr

[Sharing Lights]

MATRIXES ON WHICH WE CAN BUILD ON:

Demanding payment of illegal or unauthorized amounts -
West v. Costen, 558 F.Supp. 564 (W.D.Va. 1983)

See attached three excerpt discussing the applicable portion of the ruling;
Misrepresenting the “debt” [as defined by the FDCPA]
as including treble damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees,
before there has been a judgment by a court -
Veach v. Sheeks, 316 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2003);

.............

[Sharing Lights]

Failure to report to credit bureau that a known disputed debt is disputed -
Brady v. Credit Recovery Company, Inc., 160 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 1998);

Reporting outstanding unpaid check to Wal-Mart without stating that the debt was disputed -
Perez v. Telecheck Services, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (D.Nev. 2002);

................

[Sharing Lights]

Attempting to collect any amount not "expressly authorized by the agreement
creating the debt or permitted by law" - 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f(1).

a. Interest - Venes v. Professional Service Bureau, Inc., 353 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. App. 1984); Patzka v. Viterbo College, 917 F.Supp. 654 (W.D.Wis. 1996);

b. Dishonored check charges - West v. Costen, 558 F. Supp. 564 (W.D. Va. 1983) [See attached excerpt discussing the applicable portion of the ruling]; Ozkaya v. Telecheck Services, Inc., 982 F.Supp. 578 (N.D.Ill. 1997);

c. Credit insurance - Jenkins v. Heintz, 25 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 1994);

d. Various unauthorized fees - Newman v. Checkrite California, 912 F.Supp. 1354 (E.D.Ca. 1995);

e. Collection fees - Patzka v. Viterbo College, 917 F.Supp. 654 (W.D.Wis. 1996);

f. A fee for providing the mandatory debt validation notice- Sandlin v. Shapiro & Fishman, 919 F.Supp. 1564 (M.D.Fla. 1996);

g. Additional assessments only available from a court - Ditty v. Checkrite, Ltd., Inc., 973 F.Supp. 1320 (D.Utah 1997);

h. A debt that is in fact not owing - Finnegan v. University of Rochester Medical Center, 21 F.Supp.2d 223 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).

[Sharing Lights]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Standing is, the rights to a remedy. Who has them? Who has title to the wrong where a remedy may be procured? Surely not the DC, his rights are limited to the collection contract only; the title to the wrong, if any, still exists with the original creditor and only he has the standing to sue.

If standing is given erroneously to the DC, the judge will allow it, as cogs will do. It is only downhill from there.

Only the real party in interest can bring suit. There is only one and it isn't worth it to them, that is why they sell their collection rights. A little bit of something is worth more than alot of nothing.

gldskr

Thank you for time-efforts dedicated to help many.

Straight to the prongs:

Banks and heavily lobbying the legislators debt collection industry of racketeers change their tactics nowadays.
They are afraid to claim representing banks; they switch to a mode of representing themselves
by Assignment or Purchase of what they call: accounts receivables or investment portfolios.

Banks procure Assignment transferring all Rights and Obligations to a DC.
(non-banking, non-lending entity)

Therefore, courts (here: discussed are State's courts - not District courts)
allow presentment of the claim by DC via their attorneys subject to purported Assignment.

The underlying issue becomes the test of that Assignment being non-enforceable,
(and I ventured into details why - on numerous occasions.)

Provided that courts refuse to hear the issue of non-assignability of consumer's credit accounts
(for household purposes) the challenge becomes how
to mirror the claim of DC against that which bars them from entering the Forum?

Back to Standing; however,
under the guise of Assignability of Consumers' credit accounts. [emphasized]


You mention "downhill" when trial Court errs but, you, being you,
proceed by standards of an honest and decent human being, your Posts
seem to reflect.

I have not seen one even hinting of a semi-decent judge
in New York in person;
yet, while, personally, sat in so called PRO-SE parts,
studying the fraud perpetrated on the People.

I do believe I would meet honest judges though.

Meanwhile, the central subject matter of the discussion becomes:

which commonly accepted provision of law can be unleashed
in the first round of defending vs. onslaught vs. the People, appearing in Sui Juris mode
so that even trial judges would outweigh the consequence of ruling favorably
for their friends DC-attorneys, who have personal rapport with the black robes vs.
aftermath of fraud uncovered?

I have my opinions but I am more interested in the united effort
to build the fortress, thus.

Your angle, reflecting the disclosed?

Meanwhile, one of the angles, tails up...
or I found debt collectors' "standing" in open court.
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...tml#post129937