I'm not done with Sherman Acquisition yet!!

[jaylon]

Thank you for your immediate response to my correspondence, great service! You are in receipt of this notice under the authority of The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act regarding your correspondence dated September 9, 2005. Since your organization had no legal rights to collect on this alleged account and you were not a party on the original promissory note; I was never a debtor and your organization was never a creditor or secured party. This being said, I am requesting the entire payment history of this account and a refund of any and all monies that your organization collected by fraudulent means. My records indicate that a payment was made to your organization some time ago in or around the amount of $600.00. I am also requesting a copy of any correspondence by your organization to the three major credit reporting agencies to validate your claim that this trade line will be deleted during your next reporting cycle, and receipt of a letter stating the account will be blocked from reappearing on my credit files and will not be sold or transferred to another company.


I do regret to inform you that your company is now the target of a lawsuit due to an endless circle of grief that you have caused me. I have been requesting verification of this alleged account since January of 2005. You have sent unsubstantiated demands for payment on numerous occasions and you have used a Notary to certify a phony irrelevant" Affidavit of Debt signed by your agent Desimber Wattleton.


It is under-handed to create a phony irrelevant affidavit using a secretary of the state and shows that you are either ignorant or oblivious to the law. To advance writing, which you know is false with the intention that others rely on the written communication to their detriment can be considered a "scheme or artifice" "caused to be delivered by mail," and constitutes Mail Fraud under State and Federal Laws. You have violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act on multiple occasions. I have an extensive paper trail along with substantial proof of these violations. Should this matter be brought before a judge, it would have to take place in Federal Court because this matter involves a number of "federal questions"; namely:


- Interstate Commerce
- Title 15 U.S.C. "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act"
- Title 15 U.S.C. "Fair Credit Reporting Act"
- Title 5 U.S.C. Administrative Procedures Act


Please take due heed to this notice, this is an attempt to rectify this while it is still a private matter. The case precedent is the Cleopatra Haslip case where plaintiff was awarded 4 times punitive and 200 times compensatory for conversion. If more time is needed please request it in a timely manner. I do look forward to your prompt response.

[Leiahi]

They should start packing.

Or maybe you could.....think of that long awaited vacation!

[jaylon]

I figured it was worth a shot, who knows maybe I'll get some FRN's. Then I can take a trip to Maui!!

[weishaupt1776]

How close are you to sicking the FTC dogs on them?

[Jerseee]

Jaylon,

Good stand but trim it down a bit. Go through your work and see what can be used against you as testimony should you have to go to court. Remember, anything you say can and will be used against you.

Also, threat of a lawsuit can be considered a crime (misdemeanor). I know your upset--take it easy and let them walk into their own trap. All you need to do is spring it.

Good Job!!! Very pro-active-----I'm impressed.

Originally Posted by jaylon

Thank you for your immediate response to my correspondence, great service! You are in receipt of this notice under the authority of The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act regarding your correspondence dated September 9, 2005. Since your organization had no legal rights to collect on this alleged account and you were not a party on the original promissory note; I was never a debtor and your organization was never a creditor or secured party. This being said, I am requesting the entire payment history of this account and a refund of any and all monies that your organization collected by fraudulent means. My records indicate that a payment was made to your organization some time ago in or around the amount of $600.00. I am also requesting a copy of any correspondence by your organization to the three major credit reporting agencies to validate your claim that this trade line will be deleted during your next reporting cycle, and receipt of a letter stating the account will be blocked from reappearing on my credit files and will not be sold or transferred to another company.


I do regret to inform you that your company is now the target of a lawsuit due to an endless circle of grief that you have caused me. I have been requesting verification of this alleged account since January of 2005. You have sent unsubstantiated demands for payment on numerous occasions and you have used a Notary to certify a phony irrelevant" Affidavit of Debt signed by your agent Desimber Wattleton.


It is under-handed to create a phony irrelevant affidavit using a secretary of the state and shows that you are either ignorant or oblivious to the law. To advance writing, which you know is false with the intention that others rely on the written communication to their detriment can be considered a "scheme or artifice" "caused to be delivered by mail," and constitutes Mail Fraud under State and Federal Laws. You have violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act on multiple occasions. I have an extensive paper trail along with substantial proof of these violations. Should this matter be brought before a judge, it would have to take place in Federal Court because this matter involves a number of "federal questions"; namely:


- Interstate Commerce
- Title 15 U.S.C. "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act"
- Title 15 U.S.C. "Fair Credit Reporting Act"
- Title 5 U.S.C. Administrative Procedures Act


Please take due heed to this notice, this is an attempt to rectify this while it is still a private matter. The case precedent is the Cleopatra Haslip case where plaintiff was awarded 4 times punitive and 200 times compensatory for conversion. If more time is needed please request it in a timely manner. I do look forward to your prompt response.

[wisper]

Is it out of question for some reason, that you just don't give them 10 days to respond, as you seem to have invited them to take more time if they wish!

[Jerseee]

Be honorable and allow them the opportunity to leave the battlefield and correct their mistakes. Never deny someone their blessing of atonement.

Good question.

Originally Posted by wisper

Is it out of question for some reason, that you just don't give them 10 days to respond, as you seem to have invited them to take more time if they wish!

[Leiahi]

I am procesing some "FTC's" and I also include the "OTS".

The "Office of Thrift Supervision". (IRS)

Good points here. Always make room for allowance. Any allowance!

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Be honorable and allow them the opportunity to leave the battlefield and correct their mistakes. Never deny someone their blessing of atonement.

Way to stand in honor, Jerseee ! I wish more people knew this !

To 'blow the whistle' on someone, without due notice, is to remove their opportunity to repent.

If you are ever privy to private/secret information about an injury, and the cops want you to tell what you know (witness), (or they'll hold you accountable), stand on your first amendment rights, and show them the door, until you have given the alledged perpetrator, due notice and opportunity.

To do otherwise, makes you judge and jury..

"Judge not, that ye be not judged" Matthew 7:1

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[KITCHIE]

Way to go Jaylon!!!

I sent a letter to sherman General Counsel


Mr. Scott Silver, Corporate Counsel June 24, 2005
C/o: SHERMAN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC
335 Madison Avenue 19th Floor
New York NY 10017

NOTICE AND DEMAND TO PERFORM
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT
NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE

Dear Mr. Silver:

You are in receipt of this notice under the authority of The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act regarding your most current file #314702-9 with your affiliate FIRST PERFORMANCE RECOVERY, this notice shall apply to all future SHERMAN affiliates and third parties as well.
It is not now, nor has it ever been KATHERINE SNEDIGAR’s™ intention to avoid paying any obligation that she lawfully owes. In order that KATHERINE SNEDIGAR™ can make arrangements to pay an obligation which she may owe, please document and verify the “debt” by complying in good faith with this request for validation and notice that KATHERINE SNEDIGAR™ disputes part of or all of the alleged debt.
Considering the seriousness of the matter the Creditor or Secured Party has determined that it is vitally important that all communications be in writing in order to maintain a proper written administrative record for Secured Party’s future remedy.
Memorandum of law
Violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act deprives the alleged debtor of due process rights depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Act applies to third party debt collectors. Third party debt collectors includes lawyers and law firms who are attempting to collect any alleged debt. George W. Heintz v. Darlene Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 115 S.Ct. 1489. when a third party debt collector contacts an alleged debtor, the collector must in the first communication or within five (5) days thereafter furnish the alleged debtor with a “dunning letter.” The dunning letter must inform the alleged debtor that the collector is attempting to collect a debt and inform the alleged debtor that they have thirty (30) days to dispute the debt. 15 USC 1692g, 1692g(a)(3). The alleged debtor has thirty (30) days to dispute the debt requiring the collectors to furnish validation of the debt. 15 USC 1692G(b) Debt collection activity must cease if the debt is disputed. Failure to notice the alleged debtor of their due process rights or failure to cease collection activity until timely validation voids any legal proceedings.

Sherman’s continued use of affiliates and third parties (as stated in your privacy policy) for the purpose of attempting to collect an alleged debt without the proper documentation and verification requested below, is subject to suits within Admiralty.

The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
OVERVIEW OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT
The Act does not apply to the original makers of a loan. The Act applies to third party debt collectors. Third party debt collectors includes lawyers and law firms who are attempting to collect any alleged debt including mortgage foreclosures. George W. Heintz v. Darlene Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 115 S.Ct. 1489. When a third party debt collector contacts an alleged debtor, the collector must in the first communication or within five (5) days thereafter furnish the alleged debtor with a “dunning letter.” The dunning letter must inform the alleged debtor that the collector is attempting to collect a debt and inform the alleged debtor that they have thirty (30) days to dispute the debt. 15 USC 1692g, 1692g(a)(3). The alleged debtor has thirty (30) days to dispute the debt requiring the collectors to furnish validation of the debt. 15 USC 1692G(b). Validation of the debt can either be a signed judgment order or an accounting which is signed and dated by the person responsible for maintaining the account general ledger. See Spears v. Brennan, Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807, 96 Hawaii 32, (Hawaii App 2001), Fooks v. Norwich Housing Authority 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 371, (Conn. Super.2000), and Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc. 513 A.2d 1218, 201 Conn.1 (1986). See also Solon v. Godbole, 163 Ill. App. 3d 845, 114 Ill. Dec. 890, 516 N. E.2d 1045 (3Dist. 1987). Debt collection activity must cease if the debt is disputed. Failure to notice the alleged debtor of their due process rights subjects the collector to suit for violation of the Act and any action to collect without informing the alleged debtor of their due process rights or failure to cease collection activity until timely validation subjects the collector to suit for damages under the Act and voids any legal proceedings including mortgage foreclosures. The Act also allows damages when the collector makes false statements regarding the character or amount of the alleged debt. An aggrieved party has one year from the violation of the Act to sue or one year from the taking of property by the collector. An aggrieved party under the Act is entitled to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in statutory damages plus unlimited damages for intentional infliction of emotional anguish. Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1267, 833 P.2d 545 (1992), and Fletcher v. Security Pacific National Bank, 23 Cal.3d 442, 451, 591 P.2d 51 (1979). In addition, without time limitation, judgments including judgments which have been collected and mortgage foreclosures are void by reason of deprivation of due process rights deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. It is possible to recover full damages under both strategies or double recovery. Award of statutory damages does not require proof of actual damages, Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit Corp., D.Conn.1990, 783 F.Supp. 724. Consumer need not produce evidence of actual damages, Crawford v. Credit Collection Services D.S.D. 1995, 898 F.Supp.699. Actual damages not capped at $1,000 Smith v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, D.Del.1991, 124 B.R. 182. Court may consider sum necessary to amend bad behavior. Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1267, 10 Cal Rptr. 2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 (1992) and Fletcher v. Security Pacific National Bank, 23 Ca.3d 442, 451, 153 Cal.Rptr. 28, 591 P.2d 51 (1979). Debtor need not show intentional conduct on part of collector. Russell v. Equifax A.R.S. 74 F.3d 30, 33 (2nd Cir. 1996), Bently v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60, 63 (2nd Cir. 1993). The FDCPA allows recovery for costs. If a debtor notifies a debt collector within 30 days after receiving notice of an alleged debt, that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector shall cease collection activity until the debt collector obtains and sends verification of the debt to the debtor. 15 USC 1692g(b). A copy of the consumer credit contract is not sufficient to validate the debt. Validation requires presentment of the account and general ledger statement signed and dated by the party responsible for maintaining the account. Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807, 96 Hawaii 32, (Hawaii App 2001), Fooks v. Norwich Housing Authority 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 371, (Conn. Super.2000), and Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc. 513 A.2d 1218, 201 Conn.1 (1986). and Solon v. Godbole, 163 Ill. App. 3d 845, 114 Ill. Dec. 890, 516 N. E.2d 1045 (3Dist. 1987). The debt collector must actually review the file. 15 USC 1692e(g). Claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act adhere to the unsophisticated consumer standard. See Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1994, 27 F.3d 1254, on remand 162 F.R.D. 313.