Letter's from Debt Collector

[masterduke]

Some Clearing of the debt Validation/verfication gauntlet:
Your Right to obtain validation and verfication of debts that are attributable to you IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT GRANTED TO CONSUMERS by the FDCPA. It is one of the most misunderstood rights.
FDCPA states that a debt collector MUST inform you of your VALIDATION rights within 5 days of initial contact(how many debt scums do this? Zero %) This can be either verbaly or in writing or both.
You must be notified if you dispute the debt within 30 days of being informed of your Validation rights, the debt will not be PRESUMED to be valid.
You must be notified that if you request in writing, VERIFICATION of the debt ALL COLLECTION ACTIVITIES MUST STOP until debt scum has provided you with written VERIFICATION of the debt.
You must be notified of the amount of the debt and the amount of any fees(which they never disclose I'll bet).
The 30 day period during which you can dispute the Validity of the debt("VALIDATION PERIOD") is NOT a grace period from collection activity. Debt scum may contact you during this period of time, may collect money from you, and may even sue you(believe it).
If you do not dispute the debt within 30 days after being notified of your VALIDATION RIGHTS, the debt will be assumed to be valid. The debt scum can report this debt to a CRA to be included in your credit file during this initial 30 day period.
BUT a recent AZ court ruling has held that there is no requirement that your dispute of a debt be made in writing, and the debt scum VIOLATES THE LAW if it requires written disputes in order to overcome the presumption of validity, so a simple statment to a debt scum over the phone that you dispute the debt is sufficent to overcome the presumption of validity(This would de-rail their Burden Shift that they rely on so heavily for their courtroom crap. The judges all know this, but allow this crap to stand as permissable in their courtrooms)
VERFICATION and VALIDATION are synomous with debt validation. If within 30 days of recieving notice of your validation rights(you never recieved this notice did you?) you write the debt scum to request VERIFICATION of the debt, The debt scum MUST STOP ALL COLLECTION ACTIVITY until they have mailed "proof" of the debt to you.
Adequate proof of the debt consist of:
Original amount of the debt
Date which debt was incurred
Name and ADDRESS of original creditor
A statement that the debt has not been paid
A statement that the original creditor provided goods or services in consideration of the debt.

Some Misinformation:
There is no legal requirement that debt scum provide you with a notarized statement or the original underlying contract, or even a copy of the contract, or an itemized statement. The judge will accept the debt scum providing information outlined in their claim as generally sufficient "proof" for Verfication purposes.
So you have to figure other legal defenses to fight these creeps.
Some hope from "burden shift" sneaky stuff
If you fail to exercise your validation rights and dispute the debt during the initial 30 period, you are not admitting that you owe the debt. The debt scum will still have to produce proof in court that you owe the debt.
Procedure blunders on the debt attorneys side is an area to investigate when developing real defenses against their attacks.

[charlesa6]

Yep!! True!! You are absolutely right, masterduke.

[masterduke]

Heres a letter to send to debt collector scum. Modify to your particular circumstance. Hope this may help by being a sharp stick in their eye? It brings up a set of questions that goes around their usual dunning/complaint LSS computer generated crap. They also use this crap to provide 'Prima Facie' evidence, to stick you with the "burden shift" they need to move right to summary judgement.

Creeps, Theives, Robber & Thugs
Debt Attorney Scumbags LLC

Re: Your "client" Life of Deceit, LLC as successor in interest to Predatory Lender Bank

File No:0000000000

I received your letter dated July 32, 20000029, regading above "account"
Enclosed, please find material for the immediate attention of your or your banks legal and finance departments.
This is constructive notice that I am disputing the validity of this alleged debt, and its originating contract for reasons and causes including but not limited to constructive fraud, fraud on the contract, and fraudulent conveyance.
This alleged debt will stand invalid and herby disputed, until the following questions and demand for documentation are satisfactorily addressed by you:
1. Is this bank regularly examined by employees of Thrift Supervision?
2. Does this bank follow the monetary expansion rules laid out in the Federal publication 'Modern Money Mechanics'?
3. Does this bank employ the 'transaction concept' of money,as revealed in the Federal manual named above?
4. Did this bank accept some form of 'promissory note' and exchange it for a bank 'liablity' to open this particular alleged account?
5. Did the bank raise an 'asset' in the same account when it was opened?
6. Did the bank use my alleged signature on the note to raise this 'asset'?
7. Is it the bank's policy to return or refund this 'asset' to me?
8. Where in the contract was I informed of this use of my alleged signature?
9. Please produce certified copies of the intial balance sheets for the alleged account in question.
10. Please produce what the bank considers to be the entire promissory note.
11. Please produce what the bank considers the entire alleged agreement.
You are now informed that if this bank should decide to litigate against me, I will counterclaim for causes including but not limited to constructive fraud, fraud on the contract, and fraudulent conveyance.
You are now also informed that I allege that the cost and risk in the note was misrepresented and has shifted, as revealed by the money trail.
I will seek more discovery. Please prepare your(or your client's) chief auditor to address the above interrogatories. Also Thrift Supervision will have to be subpoenaed as they won't come if I just invite them; they will be deposed as experts. Thrift Supervision has grudingly confirmed the above in other cases and I do not expect they apperciate that role being thrust on them.
You are now informed that, having properly challenged and disputed the validity of the alleged 'debt', I require answers to the above as is due. Failure to answer is prima facie evidence(use it on them for a change) of this banks intent to dodge the issue, and possibly continue fraudulent collection, or post information that would damage me.
My postion is clear: this banks unconscionable contract of adhesion is void, ab initio, for causes of action including, but no limited to, fraud on the contract. It will be construed against them as a standard of review. Failure to discharge the alleged account will be considered continuing acts of fraud, which are actionable. I will demand the return of alleged original asset; the bank can't have it both ways, using the initial note as instrument and funds.
Our differences are ones of fact, and only a jury may decide them. I don't believe a jury is going to like what they will discover the bank actually does to them.
If I do not receive a proper response from you within 30 days, I will assume this matter to be closed. reporting this alleged account as anything but 'discharged', or any further collection effort without satisfying the above will be considered an act of harrassment an will be responed to according to the FDCPA Laws
This and all records regarding this case are made and kept as evidence for a jury.
Notice to agent is notice to the principal.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours,
Curley Howard

(+)
Also send a Certifcate of Service
(disclaimer: this is for entertainment purposes only. If it sparks some ideas then, good!)

[charlesa6]

It look good, however probably the shyster might sit on it or give it to another buddies to pursue the collection.

[masterduke]

Charles you are right. If they do sit on it beyond the 30 days then its considered a closed matter? But at least its a response that gets right to the heart of the matter. Deception.

[charlesa6]

Yep!! You are absolutely right on the money, masterduke.

[masterduke]

Of course the debt attorney scum if presented with the above set of questions would probably run and hide behind their usual "answer" when they don't wanna answer direct questions exposing their and the courts fraudulent activities: 'This question falls out of the realm of permissable discovery' or some such escape clause. Of course, the black robed doofus will allow this to stand, as they don't wanna answer this either. It would create a precedent that could possibly bring into question the whole debtor/creditor/cc trust scheme. The banks and their paid lackeys, the senate and congress would look pretty bad considering they all voted for the new Bankruptcy laws financed by the credit card "industry". But it sure would be nice to see this house of cards brought into the bright light of day!

[Friendsplacect]

A friend of mine is being bothered by a Debt Collector that is trying to enforce an Arbitration Award that my friend expressly refused to enter in to. The NAF went along with Arbitration anyway and the Debt Collector that started the Arbitration action passed it to another Collector whois trying to collect the award.
Now he is confused because he sent them a Validation letter and in response they sent the Arbitration award.

[masterduke]

I know that Arbitration awards are supposed to have no actual binding (legally) measures to them(as a paralegal is "legally" capable of handling this issue for a client???) BUT the way it is structured a victim has only 90 days to appeal this "award" in a Federal District Court or the matter is pretty much "settled" for all time(although I have heard of people challenging this) and the judge will not even allow this issue to be heard in court? Fraud would be a definite path to explore as this would overturn the arbi award ruling
Please see the thread Mediation and Arbitration Double Talk, Say What???

[Friendsplacect]

oh my, so are you saying when a Debt Collector Attorney goes to court to confirm the arbitration award and turn it into a judgement that there is no Discovery Process? or the alledged Arbitration Agreement couldnt be requested during discovery?
I just read the 90 day thing on another site, I feel bad for this guy but he might have to hire a Bar Card man.