Certified Verification of Alleged Debt

[rushpat]

Is there an official definition of the term "certified verification" and what constitutes this? I was curious as I've gotten a non-response letter that just had a photocopy of the original bill alleging a debt.



I know that it should be something official, like a sworn affidavit by someone with firsthand knowledge, notarized or with two witness signatures, and records showing proof of loss.



However, is this actually defined somewhere in some code so that I can use this? I know law dictionaries have it, but if a code shows it as a procedure, then that might have more impact when they try to claim that they did give certified verification.

[Jerseee]

rushpat,



The purpose of certified verification is for a living human being (flesh and blood) to attest to the validity of their claim and to be held responsible for providing proof of their claim.



You have signed you letter to them and you are held accountable for that as your signature is your certification or authenticity of your document.



They will not do this--nor will they ever do this because their system is inherently evil and corrupt and they know it.



It does not pass the smell test now does it? If there is a debt and they can prove that there is one--why not back up your claim with your signature?



Theft is theft and they know it. Never argue

[rushpat]

Yes, my contention exactly. However, if this detail was codified, and I could cite it, instead of just pointing to a code that says Certified Verification, then I believe that it would increase the pressure on them, as they couldn't slither out by claiming that an unsigned computer printout is proof enough.



That's what I'm looking for: a solid definition of certified verification, preferrably in their code somewhere, that would leave them no backdoors.



Thanks again.

[seeker]

check your Black's for definition -- certified verify verification etc. Include this in your "non-responsive" letter. As in, "As listed in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition --- certified ---Verified -- edt. This gives them notice of your expectations and gives all parties the same point of reference.



My question -- for some input -- would you consider a copy of a monthly statement, or even several of them -- certified verification if an affidavit accompanied them saying this is a valid account. Sign Mary Jones, book keeper or whatever. Thoughts?

My take is that this is not what I requested as verification -- I asked for the original document that created the "loan" the note signed by two parties creating a contract.

Seeker

[wirlwind]

A monthly statement isn't veruification. There are no signatures. Even if they sent copies of the receipts where you "signed " for credit card purchases and sent an affidavit with it, that person cannot certify that that is your signature.



Everything still comes back to the knowledge that they didn't loan you anything; that they did not risk any of their assets and charged you interest on something that you believed that they were loaning to you. And that fact wan't revealed to you anywhere in the contract. That voids the contract. They will never show you the original contract because there is no where in the contract that they have told you that they haven't loaned you anything.



I think it was Ice that said- No contract- No case. I've had CCC send me everythihg under the sun as "evidence" but the original contract.



Donna

[Jerseee]

Donna,



GOOD JOB!!!!!



Now you are starting to see it.



Stop discussing statements. That is not certified verification. This is the little thing that starts disputes and/or arguments.



Folks get caught up in debating about a statement and not the validity of it.



GOOD CATCH GIRL!!!

[logos]

whirlwind:

In all fairness, you can't expect them to send you the original contract, though they should be willing to show it to you. I believe UCC says a security interest is perfected by possession of the document (in this case). They would then lose their claim if they sent it to you. You wouldn't tear it up, now would you?

[Jerseee]

hahahahaaa



Logos,



If the system was based on honor no one would have to destroy anything.

[logos]

Jerseee:

That's true in more ways than one.

[Ice]

An affidavit stating that they have the original in their possession and that it can be "viewed" at the alleged debtors convenience would suffice as an answer to a request for verification. The ball is now in the court of the alleged debtor. The alleged debtor must now call their bluff and examine this original. If none is produced the alleged debtor then rebuts their affidavit with one of his own, stating the facts of the attempt to view the "original" and that those facts demonstrate their affidavit to be nothing more than false statements.



A judge could be used to force them to produce the original ... but we have already seen that the courts will accept a "copy" ... so it may take a bit of prodding.