Help from all code breakers what does 15 USC Sec. 1692(i)(b) mean?

[dashboy]

In preparing my motion to compel discovery I ran accross this section that puzzled me as to its meaning. Hoping some of you stronger minds could help me decipher it. It is the bottom siction that is in bold red. 15USC 1692(i)(b).
Any help whatsoever is appreciated!

dashboy~


15 USC Sec. 1692i
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 41 - CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION
SUBCHAPTER V - DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES

Sec. 1692i. Legal actions by debt collectors
(a) Venue
Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against
any consumer shall -
(1) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real
property securing the consumer's obligation, bring such action
only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such
real property is located; or
(2) in the case of an action not described in paragraph (1),
bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal
entity -
(A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or
(B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the
action.
(b) Authorization of actions
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the
bringing of legal actions by debt collectors.
(Pub. L. 90-321, title VIII, Sec. 811, as added Pub. L. 95-109,
Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 880.)

[weishaupt1776]

You might want to do a request for admissions on how, why, and on what grounds they are authorized to bring action.
Ask them to cite their specific authority.

I would hold this card until they come forward.

They have the BoP, not you

Do not consent to be compelled to be a witness against yourself.

see their authority

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by dashboy

In preparing my motion to compel discovery I ran accross this section that puzzled me as to its meaning. Hoping some of you stronger minds could help me decipher it. It is the bottom siction that is in bold red. 15USC 1692(i)(b).
Any help whatsoever is appreciated!

dashboy~


15 USC Sec. 1692i
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 41 - CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION
SUBCHAPTER V - DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES

Sec. 1692i. Legal actions by debt collectors
(a) Venue
Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against
any consumer shall -
(1) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real
property securing the consumer's obligation, bring such action
only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such
real property is located; or
(2) in the case of an action not described in paragraph (1),
bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal
entity -
(A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or
(B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the
action.
(b) Authorization of actions
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the
bringing of legal actions by debt collectors.
(Pub. L. 90-321, title VIII, Sec. 811, as added Pub. L. 95-109,
Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 880.)

As always, this is not legal advice, but I think you'll find that it means the collector cannot bring suit pro se.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

As always, this is not legal advice, but I think you'll find that it means the collector cannot bring suit pro se.

That is not what it states, so where do you "interpret" such a meaning? Or, did you read the invisible words that only show up if you are "licensed" to see them?

[dashboy]

Anyone have access to Nexis/Lexis who can look up thos Public laws and post them here? Otherwise, I'll have to make another trip to the Library. :(

Also, please ignore anything posted here by Roy Bean or Bill since they never provide any facts that can substiate their legal determinations or claims.

I am thinking this means the Debt collector must gain authority from both parties in order to bring the suit against the one but that is just a guess. I think those Public laws and statutes listed below might provide some facts to make things more clear on it.

Any help is appreciated.

dashboy~

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

That is not what it states, so where do you "interpret" such a meaning? Or, did you read the invisible words that only show up if you are "licensed" to see them?

Yeah, you are kind of right. Except instead of using the word "licensed," replace with the word "educated." I'll use my typical sports methphor again: You don't learn to hit a 90mph fastball overnight. It takes much time, patience, training, growth, etc. JRB has shown he has played at higher levels of the legal realm by his choice of language/words (except for some of his lesser posts where he "goes a little quatloos" at times). On the other hand, Bill Smith is some guy who wants to play at higher levels, but only has the ability to play High School ball. Actually, BS probably couldn't even make that team. But at least he is happy with his major league ball, bat, and glove (i.e. his BMer). Too bad he doesn't know how to play. If kids were picking teams, JRB wouldn't pick him either. Like Jersee said, he can take his ball and go home.

But regarding JRB's interpretation of what that portion of the code means, yes, he appears correct. A debt collector cannot use that subchapter, which looks like it includes the FDCPA, as authority which he may bring an action/claim against an alleged debtor. However, do not confuse what constitutes a "debt collector" vs. an attorney, once an action/claim has be brought.

-squirrels

[dashboy]

Ok, so if he cannot use that subsection as authority to bring suit, then by what authority is he bringing suit? And must that authority comply with the FDCPA?

O in other words must he gain that authority from the party he represents, like the bank? And if so, do I the respondent/defendent have any right through discovery to establish if the authority is true? Because in my case I think it is not. The attorney is hiding behind attorney-client privilage and work product codes to keep from showing the contract between he and the bank.

I all ready know he cannot do this if their is an issue of a crime or fraud on his and his client banks part. I believe the contract between the two shows a sell of the notes rather than giving legal aid to the bank. But I must show this in my motion to compel documents.

What I have so far is the fact that the bank placed a NOTICE stamp on the note concerning change of holder status and Preservation of debtors rights.
I has told by an ex- bank vice president that the stamp means the bank sold the note. I must show it was the attorney who bought it.
I hope this helps in clearing up the muddy water.
dashboy~

Dashboy,
Who is "he?" That is, who is the Plaintiff?

Originally Posted by dashboy

Ok, so if he cannot use that subsection as authority to bring suit, then by what authority is he bringing suit? And must that authority comply with the FDCPA?

The authority to bring suit is the underlying alleged debt obligation evidenced by the note, i.e. default of the terms of the note/contract. Plaintiff does not need the FDCPA to file a claim for breach of contract.

O in other words must he gain that authority from the party he represents, like the bank? And if so, do I the respondent/defendent have any right through discovery to establish if the authority is true? Because in my case I think it is not. The attorney is hiding behind attorney-client privilage and work product codes to keep from showing the contract between he and the bank.

Because the issue involves a note, discovery should turn up who is the proper claimaint is anyway. In Discovery, ask who the current holder is and ask for production of the note to protect yourself from any 3rd party claimaints that may exist due to negotiation. You apparently have the fact that a negotiation/sale DID occur working in your favor. Fighting a battle over attorney-client privilege and work-product may send you backwards rather than forwards. The Court will not be happy if you try to subpoena records to prove a proper attorney/client relationship exists and your only basis is your "feeling" that this is what is happening.

I all ready know he cannot do this if their is an issue of a crime or fraud on his and his client banks part. I believe the contract between the two shows a sell of the notes rather than giving legal aid to the bank. But I must show this in my motion to compel documents.

Challenge who the Real Party In Interest is (although it may be too late if you have already submitted your Answer). In essence, it challenges who is the holder of the note, i.e. who the proper claimaint is.

Good luck. And of course, NONE of the above is legal advice.

Judge Roy Bean,

Do you have any thoughts on how dashboy should proceed? And please do not give a one sentence smart-assed answer like, "Yes, go see an attorney." Something of substance would be nice.

-squirrels

greetings..
let me try this again (lost the last one)

§1692i has to do with restricting against bringing suits in inconvenient forums.. limiting said actions to . in the case of a security interest in real property.. where the property is located.. where it is not a question of property then only either where the contract was signed. or where the consumer resides..
in the case where there is no contract.. then only where the consumer resides. if the consumer moves . then so does the venue..

as to pro se filings.. this refers to a "creditor "bringing the action (again. in a improper forum) & then.. having an atty retaining control over that case. FTC says that is a no no.
See: Goldfarb,FTC informal staff letter(nov23,1988)
See: Keever, FTC informal staff letter(May19, 1989)
side note: while the creditor wouldst not be held under §1692i, they are still culpable to the fair venue requirements of the FTC Act.

as to §1692i(b) refers to say.. a collection agency stating that it may bring an action to collect a creditors debt pursuant to §1692i wouldst be in violation of the act (as it provides that it may not be construed to "authorize" legal actions by debt collectors)
the inclusion of (b) into this section was to explicitly state that FDCPA does not. alter state laws prohibiting suits by a debt collector, i.e. proscribing "unauthorized" practice of law..Thus..where does their authority come from?
See: 95th congress 1st session, §811(b) (1977)


see: halverson,FTC informal staff letter (Nov.15, 1993)

side note: as to threatening legal action §1692e(5) "threatening action that could not be legally taken" is more applicable.

distant forum abuse also is applicable under UDAP


peace :-)