CCC REPLY FROM CAP ONE

[RICKY]

HELLO ALL:



BELOW IS AN EXCERPT FROM MY FIRST LETTER TO CAPITAL ONE WITH QUESTIONS I ASKED AND INSTRUCTIONS ON WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS....

1. Was an individual depositor’s money deposit, used in order to pay the vendors when I made charges to my accounts?

2. Was the money loaned, created by my signing of the voucher when I made the purchase?

3. Is it CAPITAL ONE SERVICES'S policy to create checkbook money in amounts equal to the charges made by CAPITAL ONE SERVICES' customers?

4. Does CAPITAL ONE SERVICES have on file a contract signed by me with a bona fide signature?

5. Will CAPITAL ONE SERVICES provide a copy of the journal entry that is made when I charge to my accounts?

Please answer these questions within ten (10) days. If I do not hear from you, I will assume that what I have learned is the truth and will therefore rescind my contract with CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, as I do not wish to be a party to fraudulent banking practices.

Furthermore, I am requesting that ALL correspondences from you be in writing.

HERE IS THEIR FULL RESPONSE:

"THANK YOU FOR CONTACTING US, REGARDING YOUR CAPITAL ONE ACCOUNT. I AM SORRY FOR ANY MISUNDERSTANDING SURROUNDING THIS ACCOUNT.



"CAPITAL ONE HAS VALID CONTRACT WITH YOU FOR THE AMOUNTS YOU OWE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE EVENT YOU FAIL TO PAY THE FULL BALANCE OWED ON THE ACCOUNT. AS OF MAY 21, 2004 YOUR ACCOUNT BALANCE IS XXXXX, WHICH MAY NOT BE THE FINAL AMOUNT DUE FOR YOUR ACCOUNT. IF YOU NEED A PAYOFF AMOUNT, PLEASE CONTACT US.



"A COPY OF YOUR CUSTOMER AGREEMENT IS INCLOSED. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOUR ACCOUNT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED FROM FURTHER TRANSACTIONS AND IS DESIGNATED TO CLOSE AS SOON AS THE BALANCE REACHES ZERO. WE HAVE ALSO REMOVED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FROM FUTURE CAPITAL ONE CREDIT OFFERS. IF YOUR NAME WAS PREVIOUSLY SELECTED FOR ANY OFFERS PRIOR TO THIS ACTION, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM US OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS.



"AS YOU REQUESTED, WE HAVE REMOVED YOU TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM OUR CALL LIST AND HAVE STOPPED WRITTEN COMMUNICATION REGARDING THE COLLECTION OF THE DEBT. ALSO, AS YOUR REQUEST INSTRUCTED NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION FROM CAPITAL ONE, WE MAY NOT RESPOND TO FUTURE SIMILAR CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM YOU. IT IS, HOWEVER, A REQUIREMENT THAT WE ISSUE MONTHLY STATEMENTS FOR ACTIVE ACCOUNTS.



"IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE AT 1-800-955-6600.



"SINCERELY,"



COPIED SIGNATURE



"CUSTOMER RELATIONS ACCOUNT SUPERVISOR"

BLAH, BLAH

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO ANY RESPONSE THAT IS NEEDED? I AM CONSIDERING THAT I ASK THEM AGAIN THE SAME QUESTIONS. NO ARGUMENT INVOLVED.



SHOULD I MENTION THAT MY ORIGINAL LETTER DID NOT SAY I WANTED TO END COMMUNICATIONS, AND THAT THEY RESPONDED IN 30 DAYS RATHER THAN 10?



OR DO I JUST LET IT GO UNTIL THEY SEND IT TO COLLECTIONS AND THEN I CONTACT THEM TO ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE DEBT?



ANY THOUGHTS FROM ANY OF YOU ARE NOT CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.



KIND REGARDS TO ALL,

RICKY

[seeker]

Ricky;



Standard reply "Thank you for your no-responsive letter dated (date). Please review my orginal correspondence so that each point may be fully responded to as requestesd."

Is this signed by a living soul? If not, tell them all future corespondence should be. If it is, direct it to them in their private and public capacity. What do you think of sending them a Statement of Account with you letter indicating your records show a $0.00 balance? Ask for the contract. Ask for certified book keeping entries showing a risk on their part. Find the codes/law to support you demands.

I'm not sure how Jerseee handles the continued statements, Jersee, can you give us an account of this?



Stick to your request for them to verify and then proceed to the Protest/Default process for lack of verification.



Check the download for these.



Seeker

[logos]

Be careful with a protest. Read the thread entitled <u>Notarial Protest - a repost from TSN</u>.

[Jerseee]

Ricky,



Why in the world would you want to know how they keep their books?



What would you do with the information if they gave ti to you?



Do you actually believe that they are going to give you evidence of their fraudulent practices against you?



What does their business practices and how they run their business--have anything to do with your situation?



Where did you demand ceritifed verification according to USC 15, Chpt 41?



Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. My man, you are going in the wrong direction and it looks like a redemption themed process you are using. Notorial Protests are for collecting debts not for eliminating them. I introduced you to a school of thought--apply what you have learned for yourself and stop using methods that you cannot follow through with.



This is exactly why I do not promote that redemption stuff. It leaves you in a bind if you do not do intensive study. You have confused yourself. You don't even know how to respond to what they have sent. This situation is where a dispute begins and you will lose. Because now you are arguing about the terms of the contract--instead of the validity of the debt. That is why I always say never argue. They will throw up that contract terms in a heartbeat instead of the original signed contract. Then they will have you discussing the terms of an agreement instead of the debt. Tisk, tisk, tisk.



I have told you before, if you provide testimony you are opening yourself up to something else. You are not disputing or denying the terms of the contract. That is not your goal nor your concern. The terms of the contract are not verification. YOu want certified verification--nothing more. You could care less about how they handle their accounting or whatever.



Do not leave the platform that has been setup for you. You want certified verification of the alleged debt.



I mentioned earlier about providing testimony. Asking those questions will only lead to other questions and then cornering you into admitting that there is a debt. You started it by asking questions instead of demanding verification. Demanding verification is not asking them to show you statements or payment history. It is asking them to show certified proof of the validity of the debt, i.e. the original contract with original signatures.



Your questions to them has not put the burden of proof on them. In fact, you put the burden on yourself inadvertently. Now that this situation could become ugly for you--I highly HIGHLY recommend you start using the method I layed out and stay the course of demanding certified verification. I am not sure but that letter may come back to haunt you.



Critically read your letter again and then critically read their reply. Then ask yourself--where you demanded certified verification and where they provided it?



If you cannot answer those 2 questions--you are going in the wrong direction.



good luck

[rushpat]

Originally Posted by logos

Be careful with a protest. Read the thread entitled <u>Notarial Protest - a repost from TSN</u>.

The main thrust of the TSN warning on the use of a Notarial Protest was to keep people from sending a negotiable instrument to a party and then using a Notarial Protest against them for not accepting it and using it to discharge.



I've read that it can be used when performance is demanded, you conditionally accept with condition they prove claim and they don't respond.



However, looking at UCC 3-505(d), the UCC mentions a notarial protest and its use.

[Jerseee]

Rushpat,



What did you get when you read UCC 3-505(d)?



Does what TSN's position match with what you have read?



This is what I found online at cornell law website:



3-505. EVIDENCE OF DISHONOR.

(a) The following are admissible as evidence and create a presumption of dishonor and of any notice of dishonor stated:



(1) a document regular in form as provided in subsection (b) which purports to be a protest;



(2) a purported stamp or writing of the drawee , payor bank, or presenting bank on or accompanying the instrument stating that acceptance or payment has been refused unless reasons for the refusal are stated and the reasons are not consistent with dishonor;



(3) a book or record of the drawee , payor bank, or collecting bank, kept in the usual course of business which shows dishonor, even if there is no evidence of who made the entry.



(b) A protest is a certificate of dishonor made by a United States consul or vice consul, or a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths by the law of the place where dishonor occurs. It may be made upon information satisfactory to that person. The protest must identify the instrument and certify either that presentment has been made or, if not made, the reason why it was not made, and that the instrument has been dishonored by nonacceptance or nonpayment. The protest may also certify that notice of dishonor has been given to some or all parties.



Could it be that this is not an updated version? Because I do not see 3-505 (d). Help me out rushpat.

[rushpat]

Sorry, typing too fast. I guess I was most interested in this part:

The protest must identify the instrument and certify either that presentment has been made or, if not made, the reason why it was not made, and that the instrument has been dishonored by nonacceptance or nonpayment.

I thought that TSN's warning was the one about Notarial Protests only being used when someone gives you a promise to pay, you go to cash it and the isn't enough funding to cover it. That's what most NP's were used for at the turn of the century. I have a very old Notarial Protest log from a Notary in Illinois from around the Civil War time, and that was exclusively what he did.



The part above mentions non-acceptance of an instrument. In the past, those using the NP process would use the non-acceptance of someone's condtional acceptance and redraft as a basis to start an NP. I think most have changed to using the term "Notarial Cerification of non-response".



I've seen many these days using the 1-2-3-default method and only using Notaries to notarized their accompanying affidavits.

[logos]

rushpat:

As others have noted, notaries aren't your personal mail agents, and you can't "protest" someone's default on your conditional acceptance. Neither can you protest someone not ledgering your consideration. Protests can also be done on drafts (BoE's of various flavors: checks, M.O.'s, etc.). I posted more info on this in the Notarial Protest - a repost from TSN thread, along with a common, every-day use for NP. I told a couple of friends about this, and the mere threat of an NP was enough to get the banks to play ball.

[RICKY]

YES JERSEEE,



YOU MAKE GOOD POINTS TO ME IN YOUR JUNE 13 POST TO ME. I THOUGHT I WAS MOVING ALONG WITHIN YOUR "SCHOOL OF THOUGHT". YES, THE LETTER I WROTE WAS PARTIALLY FROM A REDEMPTION STYLE PROCESS. I SHOULD HAVE READ IT MORE CRITICALLY PRIOR TO MAILING. ONE BIG MISTAKE WAS TO STATE THAT I WOULD RESCIND MY CONTRACT. WHAT CONTRACT? RIGHT?



SO HERE I AM WITH ALL THIS MESS. SHALL I WRITE A SECOND LETTER DEMANDING THE VERIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED CC DEBT? IN IT SHAL I MAKE REFERENCE TO MY REALIZATION THAT I DON'T HAVE PROOF FROM THEM THAT THERE TRULY IS A DEBT AND THEREFORE MY RESCINSION WAS NOT VALID?



THANKS,

RICKY

[Jerseee]

Ricky,



You can clean this up by demanding verification of the debt and offering a good faith payment for the full amount.



Instead of debating if the debt is valid, give them your remedy and consider the matter settled.



How they balance their books with that is their problem not yours.