Consumer complaint received 2023-07-21
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: Brock & Scott, PLLC (GA)

Previous Complaint filed received this response from the attorney filing suit : " The Firm thereafter received this complaint. In response to the Complaint, the Firm states it complied with 15 U.S.C. 1692i when it filed suit in the County where the Consumer resides. Notwithstanding the Consumers argument to the contrary, once the Plaintiff has filed suit in the appropriate venue, nothing under the foregoing section mandates in which Court division the Plaintiff must file suit ; therefore, the Plaintiff may proceed in State Court. Furthermore, the record reflects that the Firm responded to the Consumers validation demand with original account-level documentation supporting the debt owed to the creditor in the amount claimed. Therefore, the Consumer has failed to support her complaint, and the Firm requests that the Complaint filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be closed. '' The attorney is representing a XXXX Corporation in the state of Georgia and under OCGA 14-2-1502 in order to have a proceeding in state court the corporation must have a valid certificate of authority. b. The Georgia Code, specifically OCGA 14-2-1121, states that a foreign corporation ( a corporation formed under the laws of another state ) that transacts business in Georgia without being properly registered or authorized may be denied the ability to maintain a lawsuit, defend a lawsuit, or enforce any rights in the state. The attorney is refusing to show standing in court, and violating the law by not showing her status and authority as an attorney for this foreign corporation. She must validate her status as a debt collector as stated in her communications with the alleged debtor and claiming attorney client privilege when asked to provide proof that she is authorized to represent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. as required by a board of directors authorization letter. In addition, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. is also not permitted to hire a private law firm like Brock & Scott, PC. Under 12 USC 3102b, the Comptroller of the Currency conditioned their operations, by mandatory appointment of " Attorney in Fact '' to the Comptroller. The exclusive jurisdiction for any " Banking Corporation/National Bank '' is found under 12 U.S.C. 632. ( 1 ) The repayment of the extension of credit, or the performance of any promise given in consideration thereof, would be " unenforceable '', through " civil/judicial processes '' against the debtor. ( See 12 U.S.C. 632, no court action in the state courts allowed. ) The proper venue and jurisdiction of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. is in Federal District Court, not a Georgia State Court.The " Service of process '' that is who one any litigation, as " attorney in fact '' so all these suits initiated by " private law firms '' is worthless, these entities do not have standing, they waived it as a condition to conduct banking. XXXX XXXX and/or any attorney at Brock & Scott , PC would not be able to withstand this Attorney Authority Challenge under O.C.G.A. 15-9-7 and verify that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX in fact hired their firm to represent them in this matter. This attorney has refused to provide proof that she is a licensed and bonded debt collector under Georgia and Federal Law and is refusing to prove she is actually authorized to represent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Attorney Client privilege does not cover employment or representation proof just communications that would need to be kept confidential. This law firm and attorney are acting outside their authority and violating the law by not filing this suit in the proper venue on behalf of her supposed client - a foreign national bank registered in the state of New York and without an trade name registrations necessary to maintain litigation in a state court in Georgia.