Theyre at it again....

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by Masked Stranger

"notice of withdrawal of Appearance"

"Please withdraw the appearance of Harris & Dial, LLC. as attorney for the plaintiff and enter the appearance of Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, PC as attorney for the plaintiff."

signed March 26, 2008, by "William H Harris" of Harris & Dial.

Firstly, CC debt is not bought and sold, only the collection rights. "Accounts" are pooled into a trust according to specific criteria. The trust then sells bonds against these pooled accounts profiting from the spread.

What occurred regarding the two attorneys is a simple assignment of the collection rights. While H&D and HLS may claim to represent their client, Cap. 1, this is not inconsistent as Cap. 1 is merely a debt collector as well. The true owner of the alleged debt is the trust.

What they are saying in their lawsuit is not " I am the owner of the debt and I demand payment", but rather, " I own the collection rights to the debt and in order to profit from my efforts, I strongly urge you to make payment ". In the former case the plaintiff has standing, in the later he does not; But the court will not differentiate the two, that is your responsibility.

Once the owner of the alleged debt is determined, you will then know who has standing to sue. This can be determined in various ways.

1. If a personal account actually exists that is acruable to you, there will be a 1099 C issued to you evidencing such. This is the chargeoff that is required after 6 months of a delinquency. This never happens, however, although a chargeoff appears in your credit report. The chargeoff doesn't prove ownership, only that it was held on Cap. One's books, as it was the underwriter of the bond so it was allowed the writeoff. But if you do get a 1099 C, it came from the owner.

2. Demand at the outset, the name of the trust your alleged account has been pooled into. This is an issue of standing and jurisdiction. It is the trust that owns the "account" and only it can demand payment. Cap. 1 is merely a servicer, among other functions.

3. Demand at the outset the assignment agreements from one DC to another. This will prove that the DC's have no authority to demand but to persuade and you have not denied them this right.

Now, if you allow the court to presume the DC is the owner of the alleged debt, he will certainly do so to your detriment. If you challenge standing, the odds are in your favor.

gldskr

[masterduke]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Firstly, CC debt is not bought and sold, only the collection rights. "Accounts" are pooled into a trust according to specific criteria. The trust then sells bonds against these pooled accounts profiting from the spread.

What occurred regarding the two attorneys is a simple assignment of the collection rights. While H&D and HLS may claim to represent their client, Cap. 1, this is not inconsistent as Cap. 1 is merely a debt collector as well. The true owner of the alleged debt is the trust.

What they are saying in their lawsuit is not " I am the owner of the debt and I demand payment", but rather, " I own the collection rights to the debt and in order to profit from my efforts, I strongly urge you to make payment ". In the former case the plaintiff has standing, in the later he does not; But the court will not differentiate the two, that is your responsibility.

Once the owner of the alleged debt is determined, you will then know who has standing to sue. This can be determined in various ways.

1. If a personal account actually exists that is acruable to you, there will be a 1099 C issued to you evidencing such. This is the chargeoff that is required after 6 months of a delinquency. This never happens, however, although a chargeoff appears in your credit report. The chargeoff doesn't prove ownership, only that it was held on Cap. One's books, as it was the underwriter of the bond so it was allowed the writeoff. But if you do get a 1099 C, it came from the owner.

2. Demand at the outset, the name of the trust your alleged account has been pooled into. This is an issue of standing and jurisdiction. It is the trust that owns the "account" and only it can demand payment. Cap. 1 is merely a servicer, among other functions.

3. Demand at the outset the assignment agreements from one DC to another. This will prove that the DC's have no authority to demand but to persuade and you have not denied them this right.

Now, if you allow the court to presume the DC is the owner of the alleged debt, he will certainly do so to your detriment. If you challenge standing, the odds are in your favor.

gldskr

Gldskr, Once again you have nailed it! This post provided the missing parts of the Trust issue that I tried to use years ago in a battle against wolpoff. Eventualy losing because I didn't know how to present it correctly in court. But they were held off for 7 months before the judge allowed them the win......... Thanks!
I wonder if this could even be argued in the district court? Cause the debt attorneys will howl and the blob ain't gonna wanna rule on it either. It gets into a whole other realm that they don't want to touch. It shows them ALL for the absolute frauds that they are!

[Masked Stranger]

Will I need some sort of documented proof that this "trust" exists?

I dont want to go to court and end up looking like an idiot lol

(im not being sued yet. Im sitting around waiting for them to sue me so I can counter sue)

[masterduke]

You can obtain a copy of the trust prospectus from the SEC using their EDGAR search feature(I think thats whats its called) But you have to know what the real name of the credit card trust is. Example MBNA was formely known as the GREENWOOD trust(Again if I remember correctly). And it will be hundreds of pages long but the stuff you are looking for is usually somewhere in the middle to 2/3 of the way thru all the pages. It will talk about dispersment of funds, ownership issues, Who gets paid first, second, third, etc. and how long the trust is to be in effect. which is where it gets really stupid. Example: MBNA's trust is to exist until a number of years after(like 20 I think) the last of Queen Elizabeths descendants born at such and such a time and after said descendant passes away at such and such a date!! Its one of Prince Chucks kids but I forgot which one Whats up with that? But that is contained in the Prospectus. I wish you the best in this endevour.

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by Masked Stranger

Will I need some sort of documented proof that this "trust" exists?

I dont want to go to court and end up looking like an idiot lol

(im not being sued yet. Im sitting around waiting for them to sue me so I can counter sue)

The whole secret to the lawsuit game is simply not to play, so a countersuit would be non productive. What you want to do is challenge the plaintiff's ability to initiate the game; its standing. Until the correct players are identified, the game cannot begin, unless you choose to play with posers. The court doesn't care one way or the other.

Rest assured that such trust does exist, however, identifying such will be an effort in futility on your part, as there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of trusts to investigate. Regarding CC debt, a new one is created every month for your specific "account" based upon the adjustments to the original "agreement".

The reason most people lose in court is because they allow third parties the standing to bring the suit, whereas compromised proof can then be entered into evidence.

But there is no need to know the exact name of this trust because once challenged, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove ownership, hence standing. The OC, now a mere DC, has presumably charged off this account and issued a 1099C and reported such to the CRA's. Did you receive a 1099C? Highly doubtful as this would prove an account accruable to you. This is the evidence as to who owns the debt. No contract, no validation, no verification, nothing is needed as these can presumably be proven if you receive the 1099C.

If you allow the posers to bring suit the court will deny your demand that they produce the 1099C. This is because the standard of proof is relaxed for DC's as they are suing upon their collection rights not ownership rights. The controversy they seek to be adjudicated is " Masked Stranger owes entity X $$$ and we (DC) demand that he allow us to do so". DC certainly has the standing to assert the latter part of that statement, but has none regarding the first.

Again, if you allow the door to be opened, the entire statement will be adjudicated upon.

A possible strategy upon receiving a summons;

1. Entity X has no authority to demand payment until it can prove it is the owner of the alleged debt.

2. Such proof consists upon identifying the trust indenture wherein my alleged account lies; or the assignment document accruing all ownership rights to Entity X; or the 1099C wherein the owner has charged off an account accruable to me.

3. Absent any of the above, the plaintiff has no authority to demand anything other than that which is stipulated within the FDCPA.

4. Masked Stranger has not denied DC his FDCPA rights to call, write, or otherwise investigate Masked Stranger in order to persuade him to pay the amount alleged.

5. Based upon the forgoing, plaintiff has no standing to bring suit, thus the court is without jurisdiction.

Number 4 above is the essence of their case. Do not allow them to deviate from this. Everything outside of a breach of their collection rights is without jurisdiction, of course, that is their deception.

If the court should rule against you in this instance, you must of course appeal. Once jurisdiction is given, you are toast.

gldskr

[Masked Stranger]

That sounds like a lot of work.

Wouldnt it just be easier to let them sue (for their 500 some odd dollars) and then counter sue for violating the FDCPA?

I have all the call logs from verizon as well as a copy of the letters I sent them in which I clearly tell them to cease all telephone communications. (they still call/leave messages at least 3-4 times a week)

I still dont understand if I can only sue them for up to $1000, or $1000 PER VIOLATION of the FDCPA. Either way I would still come out of court with $500 in my pocket, and the debt taken care off. (the other "debt" I have the notice of dismissal with prejudice)

is there something wrong with my logic?

I still have 4 finals to get out of the way so Im not trying to put all my effort into this, at least not yet. So dont interpret this as I dont care or im lazy or something lol.

[mrg]

I think it is $1000 per violation.