On  XXXX - 2017,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  served me a " summons '' that they were suing me on behalf of  Capital One Bank ( USA ) N.A..      The front page of the " summons '' and " complaint '' was actually where ( once a professional showed me where to look ) they told me I could dispute the debt.     Th e " Summons '' and " Complaint '' tur n out to be fake. There is no court number and no court date.     The fact they tried to scare me with that " summons '' overshadowed the rights notice that they included and left me thinking I had no rights. Any reasonable person would interpret that they are not still able to dispute the debt. Intentionally doing that is a clear and actionable violation of Section 1692g of the FDCPA.     This is the first communication that I have ever received from  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  on this debt.     Last month on  XXXX   XXXX ,    2017 I had  se nt Capital One ( the original creditor ) a re quest for verification, validation and documentation of the account they claimed that I owed them. I did not hear back, but instead they - exactly 30 days later - had  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  sue me with these un-registered papers.         The basis for the claim  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  as well as Capital One is lodging against me in this action is flat out wrong based on REPEATED ignored requests of validation made by me ( through original signature on contract originating a contractual relationship with Capital One as well a through a full and complete accounting of every transaction, balance and payment applied from  XXXX  to date as well as a comprehensive breakdown of what portion of the alleged debt is principal, interest, fees and when the fees were charged and what the fees consist of ).     There is no basis whatsoever for the claim th at Capital One h ad delivered goods, services, cash advances or balance transfers to me as they claim in your first. FURTHERMORE, there is no basis whatsoever for the claim of Capital One that I have an account with Capital One with an account number  XXXX  - as credit account numbers are numerical. This intential misrepresentation of the claimed account is actionable as a direct violation of my consumer rights.     I deny the second claim that I am in default for failing to make the required payments on the charge account as - again - yo ur Capital One had re peatedly failed to provide validation and documentation of such upon repeated request by me.     Additionally, I have some concerns about the fact that the " summons '' sent to me was clearly robo-signed. This would lead someone reasonable to believe that this was not written by  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  as the robo-sign says, but instead, from my vantage point, someone practicing law without a license.     I have some concerns about the way in which  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  handled Dunning me and that the notice concerning my rights is clearly OVERSHADOWED by the 'summons '' that they have served upon me. Any reasonable person would interpret that they are not still able to dispute the debt. That is a clear and actionable violation of Section 1692g of the FDCPA as well as a potential ethics violation as well.     Additionally, the " summons '' FAILED to disclose Plantiff 's costs and disbursements, per diem or any other readily available structured fees. I find this ethically questionable as those fees could be anything and if hidden, cause a reasonable person to not seek representation out of ignorance of the potential additional liability.     I want  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  to face consequences for how they handled this whole situation and that they drop the situation as the claim has not any merit and should not be pursued.     As I was interested in finding an amicable solution to this issue, was open to reasonable settlement proposals from  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  that will equitably settle this situation for both Capita l One and I in which Capital One w ill no longer assert claim against me and in which I will not pursue claim against BOTH  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  AN D Capital One Ba nk. ( We did call  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  in an attempt to find a reasonable solution and they said they can only do it at 90 % of the balance DESPITE the things that I can sue them for and am looking into my options on because of their legal infractions and violating of collection law ).     Please help me in getting justice in this situation.      XXXX