Product: Debt collection

Re : Account for XXXX I. NOTICE OF VALIDATION REQUEST This letter serves as formal notification, in accordance with 15 U.S. Code 1692, that the debt referenced by the aforementioned file number is contested and disputed, either partially or entirely. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), all collection efforts regarding this account are to be suspended until the matter is settled. I declare that the account ( s ) in question hold inaccurate or fraudulent information. I did not authorize, nor did anyone under my authority, the disputed transactions. 
Any further attempts at solicitation of this kind will be reported to the U.S. Postmaster for potential mail fraud, as it involves the use of U.S. Mail to promote a contract that may be fraudulent or misleading.

Under 15 U.S. Code 1681i and 1692e ( 8 ), you are required to promptly notify all credit reporting agencies ( CRA ) or Credit Bureaus ( CB ) about the dispute. It is your responsibility to direct them to delete any negative information pertaining to the accounts in question. Additionally, failure to verify with the credit bureaus as of the current date, or inaction regarding these demands, constitutes a breach of the FCRA and FDCPA, which may incur the associated fines and penalties.

Verification and validation are demanded and required. Verification and validation are distinct terms and concepts, as highlighted by their definitions : Verification involves confirming the accuracy of a claim, such as the existence of a debt, while validation is the process of ensuring that a product or service meets the requirements and expectations for which it was intended. Both play crucial roles in different contexts, ensuring reliability and compliance with standards. 
See Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 ( 4th Cir. 1999 ). The definition of verification according to XXXX 's XXXX XXXX is... averment that the party pleading is ready to establish the truth of what he has set forth. ... The examination of a writing for the purpose of ascertaining its truth ; or a certificate or affidavit that it is true.. The court said Confirmation of the correctness, truth, or authenticity of a pleading, account, or other paper, by an affidavit, oath, or deposition. McDonald v. Rosengarten, 134 Ill. 126, 25 N.E. ( 1890 ) ; and Summerfield v. Phoenix Assur. Co. ( C. C. ) 65 Fed. 296 ( 1922 ) ; and Patterson v. Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 127, 40 N.Y. Supp. 581 ( 1898 ). 
Validation is for disputing a debt, stopping account and credit reporting activities until the debt has been confirmed, see Spears v. Brennan, 745 N.E. 2d 862 Ind. App. ( 2001 ). As defined in XXXX 's XXXX XXXX, assessing an action to determine it is complete, correct, implemented and delivering the correct outcome. ; XXXX states it as to check or prove the validity or accuracy of something ; XXXX says , to show the existence or truth of, by evidence. 
II. VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS The demands are, but not be limited to : 1 ) I am exercising my rights under the Truth in Lending Act, specifically 15 U.S. Code 1601-1667f, to request a clear disclosure of the identity of the original creditor involved in this transaction. It is my legal right to have transparent information about the principal party of interest. 
2 ) I need an original contract to be produced, bearing the wet-ink signatures of all involved parties. Prior to the trial, a notarized copy may be submitted, but the original document is required during the trial. No substitutes, such as an affidavit of loss, will be considered valid. Should the original contract be stored at a different location, please provide the address and the available times for in-person viewing. As a maxim of contract law : The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are : mutual assent ( agreement by both parties to a contract ), expressed by a valid offer and acceptance ; adequate consideration ; capacity ; and legality.

3 ) Please provide a detailed explanation of the nature of the claimed debt, including the specific services or money transactions that resulted in the alleged amount owed. Additionally, furnish a comprehensive breakdown of how the total sum was determined, accompanied by any pertinent documentation that substantiates the claimed obligation under 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( a ) and 1692g ( b ). It is also asserted that there is a considerable unresolved BILLING DISCREPANCY or ERROR concerning the original debt.

4 ) Production of account and general ledger statement ( s ) showing the full accounting of alleged obligation. This includes evidence of contracts, billing statements, PLUS any securities generated behind the scenes, tax benefits taken, charge offs ( which are income ), and discounts in selling the alleged debt. This is required by all parties ; debt collectors and principals. This evidence is due is required to be admissible as evidence ( sufficiency of pleadings by a fact-witness ), along with a signed affidavit by the person responsible for maintaining these public and private accounting records, by the person having first-hand knowledge as to its accuracy and authenticity, who are able to testify under oath as required. Mere account statements of account are insufficient evidence.

5 ) Deliver proof your organization is a contract party to the original transaction. You seem to think there is a right to collect when your organization never loaned money to me. I have never signed any contract with you. You may have bought a note, but it was not signed by all parties. American Jurisprudence 2d 73 states that The right of subrogation does not exist for a stranger to the transaction. Subrogation means to substitute and stranger to the transaction means a party that is not on the original contract. So, the right to substitute a third-party collector [ you ] into a contract, does not exist. The third-party has no rights if they did not give consideration in the original contract and were not mentioned on the contract or were any part of the contract; including loans transferred, assigned, sold, or changed hands in one manner or another. To bring such a claim will immediately be identified as fraud upon the court. You have been noticed.

6 ) Proof that the alleged account is not out of the states statute of limitations, if proven valid at all.

7 ) A copy of your license number and registered agent information allowing you to operate as an agency in this state - [ except if in AL, CA, DC, DE, GA, KS, KY, MO, MS , MT, NH, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX, VA or VT ].

8 ) Stipulate for the record whether or not the alleged loan has been securitized, and if so, the name and all other information of the financial instrument the alleged loan is bundled with, including profits generated or tax benefits taken.

9 ) Where did the money or credit supposedly loaned or issued to me come from? Or if form a service, a loan or properly executed service contract is still missing.

III. OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A response to each point outlined in the affidavit is mandated by law. The legal principles, " Silence is admission, '' and " An affidavit without rebuttal stands as truth, '' apply here. According to Restatement 2nd 69, not responding within thirty days is deemed an acknowledgment of the debt 's invalidity, a relinquishment of all associated legal claims, and an indication that the account holder may have been subjected to identity theft. Consequently, there is a call to close the claim and amend any adverse credit reports related to the purported debt with all credit reporting agencies and bureaus, pending verification. 
Upon receiving this letter, you are allotted a thirty-day period to either : 1 ) submit a detailed response to the provided affidavit, through a sworn affidavit of your own, accepting full commercial responsibility and attesting under oath to the veracity and completeness of your statements. Simple declarations will not be deemed adequate. Should you require additional time to furnish a comprehensive reply, please formally request an extension in writing. Alternatively, 2 ) provide a written confirmation within the same thirty-day timeframe, acknowledging the full settlement of the purported debt, and specifying the timeline for the removal of the item from all credit, banking, internal, and public records where it appears. Upon receipt of such confirmation, no further measures will be necessary, and your obligations concerning this issue will be considered fulfilled. A failure to address this matter will be regarded as a default in commercial terms and will imply your agreement with the affidavit 's assertions.

IV. FUTURE COMMUNICATION ( S ) According to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 805 ( c ), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 1692c, excluding the waiver of Section 1692c ( c ), any further communication about this purported debt following the receipt of this notice, without delivering appropriate procedural validation, constitutes a violation. A " refusal for cause '' will apply to any unsigned correspondence or any communication that fails to identify the individual sender from your organization. Written communications are permitted solely for conveying settlement proposals or providing debt validation.

V. NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Should there be no comprehensive validation of the purported debt, it is hereby recorded that the aforementioned entity has sustained " harm and injury '' equivalent to the value of the unverified debt, accruing at an interest rate of 20 %. This constitutes a formal notification and a demand for the settlement of any unvalidated debt, which includes a minimum fine of {$1000.00} for each violation of the FDCPA, per incident of harm. This is enforceable through small claims court or other legal avenues. Additionally, a notice of lien will be filed against all personal and principal assets to recover the owed amount.

VI ( a ). CASE LAW AND JUDGEMENTS AGAINST DEBT COLLECTORS The Act is a strict liability statute ; violations of the Act do not need to be intentional to be actionable. Smith v.

National Credit Systems , Inc., 807 F. Supp. 2d 836, 840 ( D. Az. 2011 ) Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 ( 2010 ) held that a debt collector who makes an incorrect statement of law in communications FDCPA 's bona fide error defense, per 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( c ), even if it was an unintentional error.

Because the FDCPA is a strict liability statute, Plaintiff need only demonstrate one violation of its provisions to be entitled to a favorable judgment. Doshay v. Global Credit and Collection Corporation, 796 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1304 ( D.Colo. 2011 ) Simply stated, if an attorney regularly engages in debt collection activities, that attorney is a debt collector under the FDCA and is subject to its provisions. This court holds that there is no additional implied exemption for attorneys when performing tasks of a legal nature. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ) The FDCPA is a remedial statute, it should be construed liberally in favor of the consumer. Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1117 ( 10th Cir. 2002 ) Regarding hearsay exceptions for business records : In short, it is manifest that, in this case, those reports are not for the systematic conduct of the enterprise as a railroad business. Unlike payrolls, accounts receivable, accounts payable, bills of lading, and the like, these reports are calculated for use essentially in the court, not in the business. Their primary utility is in litigating, not in railroading. Palmer v Hoffman 318 US 109 ( 1943 ) Affidavit Decision Many more cases have proven this : De facto or de jure rulings secured by incestuous relationships in a lower District Court are to be decided by the trier of fact on the evidence in an Appellate Court judged by facts alone. Lewis v. ACB Business Services , Inc. 135 F.3d 389 6th Cir. ( 1998 ). An unconstitutional act is not a law ; it confers no rights ; it imposes no duties ; it affords no protection ; it creates no office ; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 S. Ct. 1121, 30 L. Ed. 178 ( 1886 ) In Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA , Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 919, 932 ( W.D. Wis. 2013 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX was awarded {$570000.00} in damages for the harassment involved. 
Additionally there have been numerous judgments against debt collectors for similar violations such as : Dixon-Rollins v. Experian Information Services et . al. 2:09-CV-00646-TJS, revolving around inaccurate claims on a credit report. In that case, for similar claims, the jury awarded Dixon-Rollins {$500000.00} ; this amount was reduced to {$270000.00} by the court. 
Even a mere massage places you at risk : Gryzbowski v. I.C. System, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 618 ( 2010 ) found a message was a communication in an attempt to collect a debt ; and Mark v. J.C. Christensen & Associates , Inc., Civil No. 09-100 ADM/SRN, 2009 WL 2407700 ( D.Minn. Aug. 4, 2009 ) found a voicemail to be the same. Even worse, in Costa v.

National Action Financial Services, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1069 ( E.D. Cal. 2007 ), NAFS failed to state a message was from a debt collector and lost. Romea v. Heiberger & Associates, 988 F. Supp. 715 ( S.D.N.Y. 1998 ) ; and Inman v. NCO Fin.

Sys., Inc., No. CIV.A. 08-5866, 2009 WL 3415281, at *1 ( E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2009 ) found pre-recorded calls count as communication. 
In the case of Brim v. Midland Credit Management , Inc., 795 F. Supp.2d 1255 ( 2011 ) the jury rendered a verdict awarding plaintiff {$100000.00} in compensatory damages and {$630000.00} in punitive damages due to Midland Credits willful noncompliance of its duties under federal law ( FCRA ) to adequately investigate the consumers repeated credit report disputes over a 2-year period. Midland Credit sought to vacate the judgment or reduce the plaintiffs award, but the court refused, finding that a punitive damages award of roughly six times the actual damages award of {$100000.00} was appropriate under Supreme Court standards. 
Other cases showing the ease of incurring FDCPA violations, like Cavallaro v. Law Office of Shapiro & Kreisman, 933 F. Supp. 1148 E.D.N.Y. ( 1996 ) ; and Masciarelli v. Richard J. Boudreau & Associates , LLC, 529 F. Supp. 2d 183 ( 2007 ) ; and Harrington v. CACV OF COLORADO , LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 128 ( 2007 ) ; and Picht v. Hawks, 77 F. Supp.

2d 1041 ( 1999 ) ; and West v. Nationwide Credit , Inc., 998 F. Supp. 642 ( 1998 ) ; and Cloman v. Jackson, 988 F2nd 1314, 1320 ( 1993 ) ; and Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions , Inc., 584 F.3d 1350 ( 2009 ).

Including case law that shows pro se and pro per litigation is extremely effective in rendering invalid debt obsolete, such as Acosta v. Campbell Case No. 6:04-cv-761-Orl-28DAB ( 2006 ) ; and Sherman v. Blair , Case No : 5:15-cv-36- Oc-34PRL ( 2015 ) ; and Stinson v. Asset Acceptance , LLC, No. 1:05cv1026 JCC ( 2006 ) ; and Chlanda v. Wymard No.

3-93-321 ( 1994 ) .VII. FINAL PLEA AND RECOMMENDATION Litigation can be prohibitively expensive and is best avoided. If necessary, I am prepared to represent myself sui juris and pursue legal action in forma pauperis at no cost. However, it is likely that your organization will need to engage a lawyer 's services. Opting to sue in small claims court may restrict your defense options, should choose this path due to numerous legal infractions. Given the low cost-effectiveness of a lawsuit with limitedI means, this communication serves as a sincere effort to settle this issue without resorting to court. I am open to a private and amicable resolution, including private arbitration. I appreciate your consideration of this matter.