Product: Credit card or prepaid card

Capital One has responded I see, and with considerable documentation. The documentation they have provided is, in fact, hearsay documentation. They have provided no affidavits to attest to the accuracy of this information. They have taken a month and a half to produce this packet of information, flawed as it is, yet have already stated this purported debt was verified to place on my credit report files and were able to determine the data on those files was accurate before apparently having these files at hand. A large business such as Capital One, particularly with the modern age of high tech computers and massive data filing storage capability should have had that information on hand if this case was as cut and dry as they are purporting it to be, particularly when they furnish information to the credit bureaus stating that the data is verified. As I stated in my last complaint, this presumptive action demonstrates deceptive acts to the consumer as under the guidelines of the Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices. 

This documentation states that Capital One turned the alleged account over to XXXX and XXXX, a debt Collection law firm notorious for Unconscionable activities. Any contract that this alleged account may have stemmed from should be rendered void to begin with due to the violation of 15 USC 6801, regarding the protection of nonpublic personal information in handing personal information over to a company as devious and with as sordid a track record as XXXX and XXXX has. XXXX and XXXX is notorious for engaging in robo-signing scams with documentation and sewer service with court cases. They have been sanctioned by the courts many times for their conduct. Their preferred business model seems to be a preference to obtain default judgments by any means necessary with no regard to the rights of their victims. XXXX and XXXX are, as per the 1995 XXXX XXXX XXXX holding by the Supreme Court, Debt Collectors and therefore answerable to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They have a frequent and well-documented history of not working within the confines of that minor inconvenience to them. They failed to follow the 1692g requirement. I would have demanded validation otherwise. XXXX and XXXX has claimed to the person they were allegedly in contact with at Capital One that they followed all applicable laws and regulations in the handling of the account. Clearly, that statement alone, as I point out over the course of this dispute, is a violation of 1692e for false or misleading representations. I have not seen their evidentiary paperwork constituting whatever case they may have tried to make against me but if they were the same documents Capital One has forwarded in the pdf sent with the recent complaint response, they were little more than hearsay evidence, not even holding up to a standard for judgment as outlined in a case like XXXX v XXXX XXXX XXXX, particularly the element listed therein that set forth a requirement demanding copies of all extrinsic documents referred to in the consumer credit agreement as well as proof of a good faith effort to locate their target rather than what seems to be their standard of relying on sewer service. Furthermore, the NY case, XXXX v XXXX demonstrates the requirement to produce the chain of assignment showing that XXXX and XXXX had the right to sue and were able to prove their standing. 

That brings me to the alleged judgment that the enclosed pdf file states was entered against me in the document provided by Capital One. I was never notified at the time of this judgment being rendered at the time it occurred, violating any law requiring notification of such an action. Upon recently learning that there was a judgment entered against me, I mailed two letters to the XXXX XXXX that the judgment was alleged to have been entered in requesting details on the documentary evidence provided in the case, the identity and qualifications of who even signed off on the judgment, details that were not provided on the website, that persons familiarity of the facts and accuracy of provided details and that they could attest to those elements rather than engaging in the robo-signing that has been all too frequent in NY, basically whether that person followed the letter of the law in NY CPLR 3215. The court chose to ignore my letters, choosing to deny me the due process that I am entitled to as per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. Due diligence was sorely lacking. I only learned the name of the person who signed off on this case upon receiving the pdf enclosed with Capital Ones response. Of course by denying my due process rights this court failed to state whether this clerk followed stated court procedure, whether the process of filing an Inquest was followed in not having a complete sum certain provided, Capital One states in their pdf response that their retention policy prevents them from providing seven years of documentation, thereby not attaining an accurate sum certain, if the rest of the hearsay documentation was even accurate. This court has not demonstrated any proof of having conducted itself in any manner respecting the rights of the consumer, Im picturing stacks of papers to be robo-signed by a clerk in a hurry to move to the next task. Without proof as to the legitimacy of this judgment, aside from its now jurisdictional defects, it is essentially a void judgment, not worth the paper its printed on. As stated in the case, XXXX v California, The state can not diminish the rights of the people. 

Capital One complies with all laws and regulations, this the statement thats provided in the pdf file letter defending this companys standing in this matter. Aside from all of the previously documented aspects of them and their agents, in this case, XXXX and XXXX, they are obligated to comply with 15 USC 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ), when furnishing adverse/negative information to a consumer reporting agency.  They have been actively engaged in furnishing this negative information for a considerable amount of time. They have a duty to provide to the consumer a written notice prior to, or no later than 30 days after, furnishing the adverse information to the bureaus. I have yet to receive any such notice from Capital One and the time has long since passed for doing so, putting them in violation of the law. 

There are many flaws in this whole alleged account that should warrant the whole thing unconscionable. This companys action here demonstrates a method of business practice contrary to the concept of good faith and fair dealing. Of course I expect that theyll defend their actions with another round of plausible deniability and maybe some hearsay documents.