Ok I'm Confused Now . . . . .

Remember that Credit Union I wrote about the other day where the debt Attorneys resigned and ceased all collection activity on the debt and the Credit Union hired another attorney located a few minutes from my house?

Well I got a letter from the old Attorney that basically challenges my legal definition of *verification* and attempts to collect a debt. That was my 3rd request to him to correctly verify the debt as he only gave me photocopies of the bogus agreement and a printout of debts and credits made on that transaction account.

I said that verification is a notarized document where someone swears to the truth of the matter aserted in the written document - that is the Credit Union has a legal and valid contratual claim against me and that it is a Holder in Due Course. An except from this 3 page letter is below.

Anyway, this slimball wants me to give him case law on the requirements of verification under the FDCPA. Although I do have federal case law on this subject, I don't want to tilt my hand and essentially give him my strategy either.

Also, I'm not sure if the letters simply got crossed or what because the new Attorney wrote me on Monday and said that they are now representing the Credit Union. This letter from the old Attorney was dated the following day.

So here are my questions:

1. Is it possible for the Credit Union to hire 2 Attorneys to collect the same debt? I don't know who I should be communicating with anymore.

2. If the old Attorney is still on this case, should I give him my federal case law on this or say screw you and commence a lawsuit? I only have about 2 months left to sue him under the FDCPA.

____________________________________
It is generally understood that the word "Verification" is defined as "[A] formal declaration made in the presence of an authorized officer, such as a notary public, by which one [i.e. HUD FCU or an authorized representative of HUD FCU] swears to the truth of the statements in the [written] document . . ." See Black's Law Dictionary 1556 (7th ed. 1999). Alternatively, verification is defined as "an oath or affirmation that an authorized officer [i.e. a notary public] administers to an affiant or deponent [i.e. HUD FCU or an authorized representative of HUD FCU] . . ." See Black's Law Dictionary 1556 (7th ed. 1999). A deponent is a witness who gives written testimony for later use in court. See Black's Law Dictionary 450 (7th ed. 1999).

Moreover, since this deponent (i.e. HUD FCU or an authorized representative of HUD FCU) is treated as a witness who testifies in court for purposes of verification, he or she must have personal knowledge of the legal validity alleged debt transaction(s) and have a present recollection of this knowledge. See Fed R. Evid. 602 (explaining that the witness must have personal knowledge of the matter he is to testify about). Therefore, a photocopy of a loan agreement and an unattested Notice of Claim form is not enough to verify a debt.

[Jerseee]

How about this,

Write them back and tell them that you will be happy to do research for them and your fee is 10,000.00

The letter you received requesting you to provide case law to support their assertions can be construed as an offer to retain your paralegal services. You now have written proof of that offer and you should let them know that the letter requesting your services will stand as proof and you accept their offer. Then in your next letter, you send them the case law they required and send them a bill for services.

Have fun.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

How about this,

Write them back and tell them that you will be happy to do research for them and your fee is 10,000.00

The letter you received requesting you to provide case law to support their assertions can be construed as an offer to retain your paralegal services. You now have written proof of that offer and you should let them know that the letter requesting your services will stand as proof and you accept their offer. Then in your next letter, you send them the case law they required and send them a bill for services.

Have fun.

LOL that's a good one. Jeesh these collectors and the CRAs are just throwing work my way, right? Well before I accept his offer of employer, I need to determine whether he's still working for this creditor or not. So this will be the first thing I do. If he got canned by the creditor then I guess everything is moot. Otherwise, yes I will send him my fee along with a complaint to sue his ass under the FDCPA.

[seeker]

Okay, I think you should send the first attorney a "Contract for Independent Services" and ask that he sign, witness and notarize the sucker, and with it's return you will be happy to supply his understaffed office with the services of an independent researcher/paralegal, whatever.

See what kind of response that gets -- why do the work and THEN bill him? Like you'll see anything there except them twisting what you provide for their purposes. Additionally, with the Contract, request a copy of the Attorney Contract with the Credit Union outlining their full and complete authority and duties; and third, a Notice that there seems to be a controversy at said Credit Union regarding their status so item two is required immediately, accompanied by a letter of update from the Bank Official that the Contract is current as of the date notarized on the document.

Have a LOT of Fun! After all, they are using your signature for their gain, they are harrassing you on several fronts, and they are not willing to be courteous and honorable by simply providing you with the Proof of Holder evidence you originally requested!

Just my demented thoughts on the matter!

Seeker

[Jerseee]

Seeker,

That is great! Tweek the ideas like they need to be. Improve on things and adjust things that work for you. My option was just a thought but you went into a little more detail--thanxs!!!

When I read your post--my eyes welled up a little because you guys are really growing and thinking more freely. Hell, y'all are even catching me slippin at times!!! Wonderful!!!

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Seeker,

That is great! Tweek the ideas like they need to be. Improve on things and adjust things that work for you. My option was just a thought but you went into a little more detail--thanxs!!!

When I read your post--my eyes welled up a little because you guys are really growing and thinking more freely. Hell, y'all are even catching me slippin at times!!! Wonderful!!!

Thanks Seeker and yes Jerseee these are the thinking machines you have created!

Here's a little update on this nonsense. I wrote the old attorney an email this morning demanding clarification on his relationship with the Credit Union - that is whether he is still working as the attorney on this matter. I cc'ed the new attorney and explained that I received another letter from a different attorney that says he has been retained by the credit union. I also said that I'm confused as to which attorney I should be communicating with.

Well apparently the old attorney didn't believe me as he demanded to see the retainer letter sent to me by the new attorney. Seeing that there's no legal duty for me to send him this letter, I politely told the old attorney to go fly a kite and to either email the new attorney or speak to his *client* for more information. I also told him to inform me of his employment status before we proceed. Well I haven't heard from the old attorney since.

I know that was embarassing for him. He had no idea the Credit Union went behind his back and hired another attorney on this matter. . . .

[seeker]

hmmm.. a little reading of the "white on the paper" may reveal that the second attorney purchased the debt from the credit union ...

Just a thought. And, while I'm expending all this energy thinking -- sounds a little like attorney one may also be on the shady side, or why would he not have thrown at you that "FDCPA doesn't apply to ORIGINAL creditors"? However, I believe that the FCRA does .. and they have feloniously (sp?) attempted to report an unvalidated claim, although the CRA came through for you and nipped that bud right off!

And to that, Jerseee -- HOW do we use the deleted info of the CRAs ? Can you give a little outline here -- my brain is just emerging from a mental fog (ya know!) but I need to get some things handled with that -- No two are the same and come to think of it experian never even did respond !

Thanks for all your guidance. If worse comes to worse and we keep getting you teary eyed, we'll take up a collection to keep you in tissue!

Seeker

Originally Posted by seeker

hmmm.. a little reading of the "white on the paper" may reveal that the second attorney purchased the debt from the credit union ...

Just a thought. And, while I'm expending all this energy thinking -- sounds a little like attorney one may also be on the shady side, or why would he not have thrown at you that "FDCPA doesn't apply to ORIGINAL creditors"? However, I believe that the FCRA does .. and they have feloniously (sp?) attempted to report an unvalidated claim, although the CRA came through for you and nipped that bud right off!

And to that, Jerseee -- HOW do we use the deleted info of the CRAs ? Can you give a little outline here -- my brain is just emerging from a mental fog (ya know!) but I need to get some things handled with that -- No two are the same and come to think of it experian never even did respond !

Thanks for all your guidance. If worse comes to worse and we keep getting you teary eyed, we'll take up a collection to keep you in tissue!

Seeker

Well first off Seeker how do you know for sure that these Attorneys are mere *debt collectors* versus creditors who purchased the debt from the Credit Union?? Attorneys acting as debt collectors are subject to the FDCPA (they're treated as 3rd party debt collectors) but I'm not sure about debt purchasers. Besides, both slimball Attorneys say that they are representing the Credit Union as its Attorney and they always stamp their letters with that FDCPA *This Is An Attempt To Collect a Debt . . .* disclaimer . . . . .

And I know you've asked Jerseee how to use the CRA info against the creditors but I'll take a shot anyway. When the CRAs delete an account from your credit files, this raises a rebuttal presumption that the debt is legally invalid. And what I mean by legally invalid is that something is seriously suspect with the original loan agreement. This is why the FCRA states that the creditor cannot place the account back on your credit report without first verifying the debt, which is just a fancy way of saying *prove the validity of the original loan contract.*

Here, the bogus creditor bears the burden of explaining, under the penalty of perjury, that there was an offer, acceptance, mutual assent (i.e. meeting of the minds between you and the bank) and consideration (i.e. the bank gave you something of value like money in exchange for your Prom Note). In other words, it must go back to the very first day you walked into the bank and signed the paperwork for the *loan* and explain what happened on THAT DAY. And if the bank did not follow the Truth In Leding Act and provide full disclosure of the source of the loan, then there is no contract as of THAT DAY. Period. This is why subsequent payments on an account cannot *verify* the debt because this occurred AFTER the contract was avoided and given no legal effect. . . . . I hope I explained that right . . . . .

So if the collector still attempts to collect the debt without first verifying the debt, he has violated the FDCPA and the collector, not the creditor, can be held liable for your damages. This is like a thief coming to you and saying, "Give me your money and so what if I don't have a right to take this money from you, B@*$*"!

That first attorney I speak of has no clue how the FDCPA works because he said to me *The Credit Union has complied with the FDCPA . . . . .* and not *I complied with the FDCPA . . .* or *My firm has complied with the FDCPA . . . .* It makes you wonder how in the hell these people get admitted to the bar.

One more thing, all of your credit reports should say the same thing so I'll advise you to stay on the CRAs. If 1 CRA deletes an account from your credit report, that same account should be deleted from ALL of your reports. Otherwise, if 1 CRA says the account cannot be verified and the other says it IS verified, there's a problem with their investigative process. Think about it. There's only 1 FCRA that requires ALL the CRA to accurately investigate and report information. Therefore, ALL THE CRAs are governed by 1 federal statute and all of them should use the same investigation process and report the same things, right? More than likely, the creditor probably lied to one CRA and said that the debt is valid even though it is invalid . . . . . . .

And if 1 CRA fails to conduct their investigation within 30 days from the date it received your request, they've violated the FCRA. Period. That means it's time for you to sue their asses and get paid! Can you say *Ca-ching*?!!

I see suing collectors and CRAs can be a steady source of income if you know what you're doing . . . . ;-)

[Jerseee]

Oh My God, there you go again thinking outside the box and within the bounds of the code!!!!

Cute chick, you've got it! That is what I am always trying to push----controversy between the thieves and the code. Instead of bothering me about an alleged debt, it may be time to discuss the matter in front of a judge about their alleged debt with the evidence of the deleted entry that they have been reporting.

Also, there are a host of crimes that they have committed when passing fraudulent information to the public---libel suit is one of them.

That is why I push demanding the CRAs verify the debt that they are reporting and I don't even bother with the CCC.

[seeker]

Cute_Chick;

I made no such assumption! I was just sharing the fact that most attorneys who are acting on behalf of the actual creditor, usually at some point throw out that point. Unlike a DA who has purchased the debt -- they already know they are subject to the FDCPA. The fact that they are including it on your correspondence Should lead one to conclude they are third party debt collectors, but nothing is absolute in their world. We all know that!
I learned the hard way about demanding proof of "representation". I am still not sure HOW to get this, but I think a lot of people could benefit, especially if we could find it after the fact and use it against these DA who state clearly they are representing the CCC/bank, etc. I know I have somewhere the code that it is illegal for anyone to bring suit in the name of another, or some such -- I forget the exact wording, but it's there somewhere.

I absolutely have a CRA report that says the account for one of the two judgments obtained against me is 'sold to another lender;balance zero' dated BEFORE the judgment was obtained. It just took them awhile to get it to me! I am wondering how to put this together and being it before the judge to demand he vacate the judgment he erroneously and fraudulently made. Suggestions? New ground here for me!

Cute_Chick -- by sharing what we learn and what does and does NOT work, we all benefit. I have been proud to watch your success to date dealing with this issue!

Seeker