On  XXXX  -2017, Mess  erli & Kramer  served me a " summons '' that they were suing me on behalf of  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  (  XXXX   )   XXXX      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.     The  " Summons '' and " Complaint '' t urn 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 fr om Messerli & Kramer o n this debt.     Last month on  XXXX   XXXX ,    2017 I ha d sent  XXXX   XXXX   ( the original creditor )  a request 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 - ha d Messerli & Kramer sue  me with these un-registered papers.         The basis for the claim  Messerli & Kramer a s well as  XXXX   XXXX  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  XXXX   XXXX  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 that  XXXX   XXXX  had 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  XXXX   XXXX  that I have an account with  XXXX   XXXX  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 - your  XXXX   XXXX  had repeatedly 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  Messerli & Kramer 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 Messerli & Kramer 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 Messerli & Kramer   that will equitably settle this situation for both  XXXX   XXXX  and I in which  XXXX   XXXX  will no longer assert claim against me and in which I will not pursue claim agains t BOTH Messerli & Kramer  AND  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX . ( We did ca ll Messerli & Kramer  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