Who is the REAL Plaintiff?

[truth4all]

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/co...rodanielp1.pdf

oh boo hoo !
Look who is crying to the FTC.

check out page 2
" the debt that is sold has almost always been "charged off". Depending on the credit grantor, charge off typically occurs about six months after the consumer has made his/her last payments on the account. By that time the debtor IS NO LONGER A CUSTOMER OF THE CREDIT GRANTOR.

( if they aren't a customer of the credit grantor HOW can the REAL Plaintiff be the original credit grantor ?
(as Mr Rogers would say, "can we say intrinsic fraud"?)

check out page 8. ...
"nothing in the sale of a debt magically creates a customer relationship where it had previously terminated"
As the banking industries suggest in their proposal to implement the Privacy
Act, the "customer relationship" TERMINATES when the debt is in default and charged off by the credit grantor.

It goes on to say...

Rather, the debt buyer is trying to collect on a defaulted debt from a consumer for whom the customer relationship TERMINATED before the debt was sold.

These words out of the mouth of the long list of lawyers arguing in defense of the debt buyers !!!
Read it for yourself.
It makes it pretty clear, if the debt has been charged off YOU HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ORIGINAL CREDIT GRANTOR.
THEY said it in their arguments.
They just want their cake and eat it too.
Personally, I prefer to feed their own words right back to them.
Let's see how fat they can get off of that !

[weishaupt1776]

Isn't there a 180 day charge off anyway?

If so, what code provides for that?

[2tim215]

Originally Posted by truth4all

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/co...rodanielp1.pdf

oh boo hoo !
Look who is crying to the FTC.

check out page 2
" the debt that is sold has almost always been "charged off". Depending on the credit grantor, charge off typically occurs about six months after the consumer has made his/her last payments on the account. By that time the debtor IS NO LONGER A CUSTOMER OF THE CREDIT GRANTOR.

( if they aren't a customer of the credit grantor HOW can the REAL Plaintiff be the original credit grantor ?
(as Mr Rogers would say, "can we say intrinsic fraud"?)

check out page 8. ...
"nothing in the sale of a debt magically creates a customer relationship where it had previously terminated"
As the banking industries suggest in their proposal to implement the Privacy
Act, the "customer relationship" TERMINATES when the debt is in default and charged off by the credit grantor.

It goes on to say...

Rather, the debt buyer is trying to collect on a defaulted debt from a consumer for whom the customer relationship TERMINATED before the debt was sold.

These words out of the mouth of the long list of lawyers arguing in defense of the debt buyers !!!
Read it for yourself.
It makes it pretty clear, if the debt has been charged off YOU HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ORIGINAL CREDIT GRANTOR.
THEY said it in their arguments.
They just want their cake and eat it too.
Personally, I prefer to feed their own words right back to them.
Let's see how fat they can get off of that !

Another interesting question to add to this and I think it relates somewhat, what gives the bank (of whom you are no longer their customer) the right to change the account number without your permission, which they do, multiple times? This is a tactic that they use when you dispute the debt which requires them to remove it from your credit report according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. They remove it, leave it on your report shown as "0" balance (as they should) but then they put it back on (same debt) with a new account #. They've done this to me as many as 3 times for the same account. You talk about fraud? These are some great posts.

2tim215

[theghost]

Originally Posted by truth4all

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/co...rodanielp1.pdf

oh boo hoo !
Look who is crying to the FTC.

check out page 2
" the debt that is sold has almost always been "charged off". Depending on the credit grantor, charge off typically occurs about six months after the consumer has made his/her last payments on the account. By that time the debtor IS NO LONGER A CUSTOMER OF THE CREDIT GRANTOR.

( if they aren't a customer of the credit grantor HOW can the REAL Plaintiff be the original credit grantor ?
(as Mr Rogers would say, "can we say intrinsic fraud"?)

check out page 8. ...
"nothing in the sale of a debt magically creates a customer relationship where it had previously terminated"
As the banking industries suggest in their proposal to implement the Privacy
Act, the "customer relationship" TERMINATES when the debt is in default and charged off by the credit grantor.

It goes on to say...

Rather, the debt buyer is trying to collect on a defaulted debt from a consumer for whom the customer relationship TERMINATED before the debt was sold.

These words out of the mouth of the long list of lawyers arguing in defense of the debt buyers !!!
Read it for yourself.
It makes it pretty clear, if the debt has been charged off YOU HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ORIGINAL CREDIT GRANTOR.
THEY said it in their arguments.
They just want their cake and eat it too.
Personally, I prefer to feed their own words right back to them.
Let's see how fat they can get off of that !

truth4all, the link you posted doesn't work.

[truth4all]

Originally Posted by theghost

truth4all, the link you posted doesn't work.

humm..
it works for me by just clicking on it here but..
try this one:
Click here: http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/co...rodanielp1.pdf

[gratisman]

There is a lot of interesting wording in this letter.

What I like especially is how the Bank is always referred to as the "credit grantor." Why not call them the creditor? Oh! I forgot. I am the creditor!

[masterduke]

How about "servicer" of the trust enitity??? All the recievables that came in and are to come in are the property of the trust to which the "servicer bank" records as a sale to the trust (or banking enitity) Says it right in their own investment
prospectus 424B5 report available from the Securitys And Exchange Commision
A Federal government operation and a public document

[iamfreeru2]

The letter that Truth4all posted says it all folks. What we should be doing is attacking the debt buyers standing in court. This is what I am doing with the debt buyers that are claiming they represent Discover Bank. You know, I even called to get the number for Discover Bank in Ohio and there is no such listing, yet Discover Bank is the so-called Plaintiff. An affidavit was put in the complaint that says exhibit A (Cardmember Agreement) is attached, yet it is nowhere to be found in the file. The affidavits themselves are a fraud.

The debt buyers are hoping we do not know what is going on and that we will not show up to answer the complaint, thus having defaulted and an easy win for them. We need to quit challenging the debt and go after the fraud instead as Jerseee has said. The Plaintiff is not the original "credit grantor", it is the debt buyer fraudulently stating they represent the original "credit grantor." Like Truth4all has stated this is intrinsic fraud.

[OnTheFence]

The debt buyers are hoping we do not know what is going on and that we will not show up to answer the complaint, thus having defaulted and an easy win for them. We need to quit challenging the debt and go after the fraud instead as Jerseee has said. The Plaintiff is not the original "credit grantor", it is the debt buyer fraudulently stating they represent the original "credit grantor." Like Truth4all has stated this is intrinsic fraud.[/b][/color][/quote]


Why not answer the complaint with a letter asking for proof of claim and send postal money order with it.

[iamfreeru2]

Tell me, what would sending them a postal money order accomplish except thet they would cash it and you have just validated their claim by doing so? I am all for asking for validation and tendering a negotiable instrument, such as a BoE or CPN, but certainly not a postal money order.