Product: Debt collection

i asked, via requests for admissions, are plaintiff 's attorneys and the law firm debt collectors per arkansas code annotated 17-24-502 [ 5 ] [ a ] and 15 u.s. code 1692a [ 6 ]. the response was no. 


at the motion hearing, plaintiff 's attorney stated the law firm, nor the attorneys are parties to the law suit, only filed the law suit on behalf of plaintiff. i said, sure, but you still are liable under the codes per the latest u.s. supreme court decisions : XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX ; and other similar cases declaring, 'any person who regularly engages in debt collection activity, including litigation, ' is a debt collector per the arkansas and federal codes. 


nonetheless, the judge dismissed my counter-claims, saying he is not stating the supreme court justices were wrong in their decisions, but stated he does not believe the attorneys are debt collectors, simply because they filed a complaint for an alleged breach of contract. 


because the complaint had the statement 'this communication is from a debt collector, ' this gave me the impression the action was real. however, upon asking the question of affirmation to being a debt collector, the answer was no. what was i to believe at this point, the claim was not valid and could not be brought or maintained due to this discovery of the status of the attorneys who filed the claim against me? 


he also struck the documents i provided proving they are debt collectors, which came from their web site : hoodandstacy.com because the attorney said they were not authenticated, even though they have been doing the same for more than 20 years. each document i filed has a notarized certificate of service, this is authentication ; otherwise, what good is the lawyer 's signature on the certificate of service, other than authenticating the documents served. further, if the documents were not authenticated, this means the information on the web site is not authentic, a further reason to state a breach of the fair debt collection practices act for false and misleading information. 


the judge told me i could take up his dismissals on appeal. 


per arkansas code 17-24-507 and 15 u.s. code 1692f - unfair practices by filing the form with the above language, then stating they are not debt collectors, this is an unfair and an unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any alleged debt, which i told the judge, but he ignored me. 


per arkansas code 17-24-506 et seq and 15 u.s. code 1692e et seq by filing the complaint with the statement 'this communication is from a debt collector, ' then denying being debt collectors, this is using a false, deceptive and misleading means in connection with the collection of an alleged debt. also, falsely represents the legal status of an alleged debt, taking action, because they claim to not be debt collectors, which can not legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. further, delivering the complaint with the mentioned phrase, creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval. also, by filing the complaint with the said phrase, denying being debt collectors, this is a deceptive means to collect and to obtain information concerning me. 


per arkansas code 17-24-511 and 15 u.s. code 1692j by filing the complaint with the statement 'this communication is from a debt collector, ' then denying being debt collectors, this is furnishing a form knowing the form will be used to create the false belief that a person other than the alleged creditor is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect an alleged debt, when the person is not participating in collecting or attempting to collect the alleged debt.