INTERPRETATION OF 15 USC 1692g(b)

SOME DEBT COLLECTOR ATTORNEY SENT ME THIS CASE (Chaudhry v Gallerizzo) EMBEDDED IN HIS RESPONSE TO A VALIDATION LETTER. ACCORDING TO HIM, ALL THAT'S REQUIRED IS A LETTER SAYING THAT THE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. HE BELIEVES THERE'S NO OBLIGATION TO SEND COPIES OF BILLS OR OTHER DETAILED EVIDENCE OF THE DEBT.

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN SOLD 2-3 TIMES ALREADY. ANYBODY WITH SIMILAR RESPONSES?


“Verification of a debt involves nothing more than
the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being
demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed ... [V]erification
is only intended to ‘eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors
dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the
consumer has already paid.’ S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 [1977],
reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699" (Chaudhry v Gallerizzo, 174
F3d 394, 406 [4th Cir], cert denied 520 US 891)

[seeker]

Without validation, how can you know to whom the debt is actually owed? You say it has been sold two or three times? Have they purchased the debt or the account? Do they have a contract signed by you that did originate this alleged account?
In this day and age of identity theft, how can you know this is a legitimate claim? Unless you are dumb enough to say 'Yep, it's mine!" They have to be able to show some semblance of proof -- or they have to let it sit uncollected until the 'dispute' is settled. This is a phrase I just ran across in the 'agreement' the DA scum submitted as 'evidence' -- it says (and I'm paraphrasing so find one that relates to your card/account) -- 'no portion of a dispute need be paid until the dispute is resolved.' Now, if you have sent a VoD, and said, "i don't recognize this", that says "proof up this claim", validate this contract etc, that pretty well says "it ain't mine." which equals 'disputed balance' right? In my research and reading, I am becoming more adept at "reading the white on the page" as Victoria Joy says. Like the "hidden in plain sight" theory of justice, right?

Take a look at 15 USC 1592 in it's entirety and also 1666 -- some gold there if you mine for it.

JMHO.

Seeker

That is so true and in most contracts (speaking of mortgages for the moment) it clearly states that you must pay the one you owe or they can come back to be paid, something to that effect. If the courts allow them to get away with not providing proof and only a copy which I can get copies of a lot of signatures if I so choose, what is to prove it is legal and you are paying the correct person? You have a servicer and an investor and a bank whom you thought lent you the money which a simple man not knowing the banking fraud would think he is borrowing money from say Chase and in fact the money is coming from fannie Mae and the servicer is CountryWide WHO IN THE HELL DO YOU PAY? Them comes along a company named MERS who gets a judgment to foreclosue. ONLY IN AMERICA.

I used this arguement in court papers and it was considered Frivilous. I beg to differ. But that is what happened.

Originally Posted by seeker

Without validation, how can you know to whom the debt is actually owed? You say it has been sold two or three times? Have they purchased the debt or the account? Do they have a contract signed by you that did originate this alleged account?
In this day and age of identity theft, how can you know this is a legitimate claim? Unless you are dumb enough to say 'Yep, it's mine!" They have to be able to show some semblance of proof -- or they have to let it sit uncollected until the 'dispute' is settled. This is a phrase I just ran across in the 'agreement' the DA scum submitted as 'evidence' -- it says (and I'm paraphrasing so find one that relates to your card/account) -- 'no portion of a dispute need be paid until the dispute is resolved.' Now, if you have sent a VoD, and said, "i don't recognize this", that says "proof up this claim", validate this contract etc, that pretty well says "it ain't mine." which equals 'disputed balance' right? In my research and reading, I am becoming more adept at "reading the white on the page" as Victoria Joy says. Like the "hidden in plain sight" theory of justice, right?

Take a look at 15 USC 1592 in it's entirety and also 1666 -- some gold there if you mine for it.

JMHO.

Seeker

I DID SEND A VOD SAYING THIS:

This letter is being sent to you in response to your attached letter dated Aug. XX 2005. This is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is disputed. I believe I could have been the victim of identity fraud as I don’t recall ever having an account with your company or the company you claim to represent.
Now, and persuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), I am requesting for you to provide certified validation of the debt you say I owe you. I am requesting proof that I am indeed the party you are asking to pay this alleged debt, and there is some contractual obligation which is binding on me to pay this alleged debt............

THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE BOTTOM-FEEDER ATTORNEY TRYING TO COLLECT THIS BELIEVES HE'S ALREADY VALIDATED THE ALLEGED DEBT BY RESPONDING TO MY VOD LETTER. HE'S ACTUALLY REQUESTING ADDITIONAL LEGAL AUTHORITIES THAT REQUIRE HIM TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION.

BOTTOM LINE: HE'S GOT NOTHING. HE CAN'T PROVE THE ALLEGED DEBT IS MINE. HE WANTS TO TURN THIS COLLECTION GAME AROUND. SOMEBODY MENTIONED IN A DIFFERENT POST THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS BEEN SWITCHED. THE ACCUSSED NOW HAS TO PROVE HE'S INNOCENT.