Product: Debt collection

Convergent Outsourcing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA. XXXX Attorneys for the Securities and Exchange Commission : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Securities and exchange Commission XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania XXXX United States District Court for the District of Maryland Subject : Cease and Desist Respondent, XXXX  received the attached document in the mail regarding an alleged debt owed to your client XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX is said to have been the original holder of this alleged debt. Prior to receiving this letter, Respondent has never heard of XXXX XXXX nor has he had any form of business relationship with them. Respondent does not owe this debt. To date, Convergent Outsourcing has not provided the original documents bearing Respondents signature and the date of the alleged transaction as required by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S. Code 1692 ( 1978 ). Upon performing research on all the entities cited herein, the two primary entities, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX no longer exist. Thus, the history of this debt may not be verifiable and one the entities cited ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) lacks credibility and several of the alleged creditors involved have been convicted of fraud and other criminal activities and were sentenced to more than 20 years of imprisonment. 

Firstly, XXXX Bank was purchased by XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, 18 years ago. Thus, any debts written by XXXX XXXX  are not being collected by XXXX XXXX XXXX now. This is confirmed by XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX  XXXX XXXX has stipulated that they have no interest in collecting any such alleged debt. Notwithstanding the tolling of Va. Code Ann . 8.3A-118 ( 2017 )., Virginias statute of limitations law, which is six years in most cases, the validity of the debt can not be established and verified with the requisite documentation pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. 

The alleged debt cited herein was said to have been purchased first by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX from XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Securities and Exchange Commission secured an emergency asset freeze, estoppel, to mitigate damage sustained from the fraudulent Ponzi-like scheme perpetrated by XXXX XXXX XXXX owners, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX and named entities, as conspirators under investigation, as well as holders and controllers of the company ( s ) and its ill-gotten gains. As stated in the SEC complaint, the defendants created fake debt to sale to other entities and to show potential investors the debt that they would purchase with the monies obtain. The complaint specifically illustrates the fraudulent intent of the conspirators stating, This matter involves an offering ( of ) fraud by Defendants XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX that raised more than {$340.00} XXXX from over 230 investors to purchase consumer debt portfolios. From at least XXXX to present ( XXXX ), Defendants operated this Ponzi-like scheme that involved, among other things, securities offerings rife with misrepresentations, fake debt, forged signatures, fabricated wire transfers, the movement of millions of dollars into personal accounts, and an elaborate scheme wherein Defendants offered and sold investments in the same and often fictitious debt and or debt portfolios, to multiple victims. 

As XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX is the first link in the chain of debt collectors it is also the weakest link in the chain of debt collectors. This companys prime motivation was not debt collection, but fraudulent debt creation for the purpose posing as collectors to acquire large sums of capital, {$340.00} XXXX from 230 unwitting investors, to purchase debt portfolios from nonexistent creditors and debtors. As established herein, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX lacks credibility to further collect or recommend that any debt should be collected. The documents passed to the next credit collection entity should, at the very least, be considered suspect as this company created documents and forged signatures in the furtherance of a felonious scheme. This is not an accusation ; it is a fact proven by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Additionally, the court has ordered the assets to be managed and secured under receivership. This order specifically states, Except as otherwise specified herein, all assets of Defendants and Receivership Parties ( collectively, " Receivership Assets '' ) are frozen until further order of this Court. " Receivership Assets '' means assets of any and every kind whatsoever, including without limitation all assets described in this Order, that are : ( a ) owned, controlled, or held, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of any of the Receivership Parties ; ( b ) in the actual or constructive possession of any of the Receivership Parties, or other individual or entity acting in concert with any of the Receivership Parties ; ( c ) held by an agent of any of the Receivership Parties, including as a retainer for the agent 's provision of services ; or ( d ) owned, controlled, or held, in whole or in part, by, or in the actual or constructive possession of, or otherwise held for the benefit of, any corporation, partnership, trust, or other entity directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held, in whole or in part, by any of the Receivership Parties, including assets that have been transferred to other persons or entities but as to which assets such persons or entities do not have a legitimate claim. For the avoidance of doubt, the " Receivership Assets '' include all assets owned, controlled, or held, in whole or in part by, or in the actual or constructive possession of, or otherwise held for the benefit of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Revocable Trust. 

The next link in the chain of collectors is XXXX XXXX. The documents supplied to Velocity for the purpose of collection were supplied by XXXX XXXX XXXX which is known for producing fraudulent documents to enhance the apparent value of a given portfolio. XXXX either knew or should have known that the paper they purchased had no actual value. Then XXXX XXXX sold the alleged debt to Convergent Outsourcing. Convergent may not be aware of the fraudulent history of the companies who supposedly purchased or created the debt originally, but they have been informed herein. 

Additionally, any attempt to collect on the debts promoted by this company, XXXX XXXX XXXX, could well be considered in violation of the estoppel court ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in XXXX. If so, then this attempt to collect on a fraudulent debt is in the furtherance felonious acts previously brought to and sustained by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and may well be subject to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 ( RICO ). 

Considering RICO requires that four elements be present : a. A pattern of racketeering activity- SEC has proven various forms of fraud to secure money for the continuity of the enterprise. The sale of this alleged debt would have been for the continuation and continuity of the XXXX XXXX XXXX criminal enterprise. Thus, any entity further attempting to collect on said debt is contributing to the continuity of the previous criminal enterprise. 

b. A culpable person with the requisite mens rea or intent- Clearly XXXX XXXX XXXX intent is realistically demonstrated by forged signatures and documents and the culpable persons are named herein. Convergent now becomes a culpable entity in the criminal enterprise or organization. 

c. An enterprise - The enterprise is XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Et al now including Convergent Outsourcing. 

d. An effect on interstate commerce The attempt to collect this debt by Convergent Outsourcing has crossed state lines as Respondent is currently a resident of Georgia and was a resident of XXXX  during the approximate time that this debt is alleged to have been incurred. Additionally, XXXX XXXX Management operated without regard to state lines as it fraudulently collected {$340.00} XXXX from 230 unsuspecting victims around the country. 

As previously noted, Convergent Outsourcing has not provided the Respondent with the documents proving the legitimacy of the debt. Convergent Outsourcing may be forced to disclose and is hereby warned not to destroy any documentation or electronic records regarding this or other debts it seeks to collect relevant to XXXX XXXX XXXX or other related entities. Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1968, Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person or enterprise may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary materials relevant to a racketeering investigation, he may, prior to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding thereon, issue in writing, and cause to be served upon such person, civil investigative demand requiring such person to produce such material for examination. Convergent Outsourcing may well be forced to provide the documents to the appropriate state and federal judiciaries, as well as other federal authorities including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As such, culpability may extend to Convergent Outsourcing pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1006, by participating or sharing in or receiving any money, profit, property or benefits One may note the disclosure of to whom this document has been sent. It is this Respondents intent to expose to the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, as well as, the U. S. District Ct. District of Maryland and others, of the possibility of other entities attempts to circumvent the order of the court for the purpose of continuing to gain from and affirm the continuity of the fraudulent acts perpetrated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by default or with knowledge this is notice to all involved. 

The respondent respectfully requests that this correspondence be acknowledged in writing such that a record may be maintained for future references.