Product: Debt collection

On XXXX/XXXX/2016 XXXX XXXX ( Maine Bar # XXXX ) Appeared in XXXX XXXX District Court to represent XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX on Docket # XXXX. He identified himself to my husband as a Per Diem Lawyer hired by Howard Lee Schiff, P.C. a Debt Collection Firm registered in the state of Maine. 

When shown a copy of the consent order ( XXXX ) between XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and was asked if he was aware of it, he said " That does n't apply in Maine, because we are not governed by the FDCPA here ''. 

I was not able to get time off of work to attend the court hearing and the Judge would not accept my written statement or any evidence that was offered by my husband on my behalf. A default judgement was entered, because the plaintiff was represented by an attorney that appeared to have no knowledge of the complaint, evidence or facts of my case or any of the more than a dozen other cases he appeared for. When asked specific questions by the judge and other defendants, his response was always, " I do n't know, I will have to check ''. In one case, the case was continued for 90 days to allow paperwork to be gathered. He turned to the Defendant and asked, " Do you have the paperwork for us today? ". The Defendant 's answer was, " No, I requested copies of past statements, and your client has not provided them yet. '' I have attached copies of the court documents and a copy of a statement from the Credit Account in question that clearly shows an inaccuracy in the affidavit provided to the court. 

Item 2 of the affidavit indicates he has reviewed the business records of the Original Creditor, XXXX and those records transferred to Account Assignee ( XXXX ) from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, which have become a part of and have integrated into Account Assignee 's business records, in the ordinary course of business. 

Item 4 indicates that the original account number ended in XXXX. The attached statement from the account shows clearly that the XXXX account ended in XXXX, not XXXX. 

If the individual making the affidavit had reviewed XXXX 's records as indicated in Item 2, he would know the correct account number. 

The Affidavit makes no indication of the date of last payment or consumer initiated activity on the account. 

The Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans provided to the court appears to have been altered ( section A has a full line that appears to have been whited out ). In section A, it also disclaims any warranty on the accounts transferred. 

The Bill of Sale and assignment of Loans makes no reference to the specific accounts transferred, and therefore provides no proof of transfer of the account in question, and in fact is printed on letterhead of a company not even mentioned in the Affidavit. 

A single page is included with the alleged account information that has no indication that it is a part of any Bill of Sale and no other means of indicating its authenticity. I suspect it was included to attempt to prove the last payment date, but fails because of its lack of authentication of origin. This page is not mentioned in the Affidavit or the Bill of Sale. 

The copy of a statement included has no indication of the date of last payment and shows no actual use of the account by the consumer. It also shows the Creditor as XXXX XXXX XXXX, not XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX as referenced in the Complaint and Affidavit. A terms page included between XXXX statement pages indicates XXXX XXXX XXXX, NA but neither of the other companies, and shows nothing to indicate that it belongs with the other statement pages. 

No signed contract or statement showing actual use of the account was provided. 

To recap, XXXX has filed this suit and obtained a default judgement using many of the tactics barred by the Consent Order. 



The