Consumer complaint received 06/29/2016 about Debt collection (Credit card) with Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. (FL).
Issue: Disclosure verification of debt
Sub-issue: Not given enough info to verify debt

Complaint: I am a lawfully appointed fiduciary for XXXX XXXX with the duty to dispute any possible discrepancies in the authentication of the alleged debt on behalf of the beneficiary. In the dispute, it is clearly stated several times that the dispute was not a refusal to pay but a request for verification of the alleged debt. I have a very detailed copy of the commercial affidavits sent to the debt collector under notary presentment by permission from XXXX XXXX and I also retain copies of the response from the debt collectors. 
This dispute was sent to one debt collector who then handed it off, or sold it, to another debt collector when they could not provide the requested validations in our dispute. The second debt collection firm is an alleged attorney firm. 
After receiving the request for validations, the second debt collector returned a stack of copied statements as verification without any affidavits swearing to the authenticity of records to which I responded with a notice explaining the debt collector 's response was insufficient to verify the debt. Furthermore, the debt collector has not provided any of the requested validations or records to prove it is the holder in due course of any alleged obligation. No copies of contracts, no clarification of the facts requested to be proven by the debt collector and most certainly, no affidavits attesting to the veracity of the debt collector 's allegations were ever sent to me or the beneficiary. 
The debt collector was given 30 days to provide its proofs and requested validations. After 30 days had lapsed, another notice was sent under notary presentment attesting that we had received no valid responses and that the debt collector is in default of its obligation to provide such disclosure as to prove its alleged ownership and/or rights to the alleged debt. The account has also been charged off by the alleged creditor which to our knowledge, is not assignable as a " debt '' for an account does not constitute a debt under the commercial law. 
After two equitable attempts to have the debt collector provide requested validations for proof of debt with no avail, this debt collector filed a lawsuit against the beneficiary as if the equitable claim has no standing, force or affect in law. To our understanding, our records are under Notary seal and are the only true records at issue since the debt collector has not provided any at all. These records can be sent for authentication by the Secretary of State where the notary resides if need be. 
Here we have a first third party debt collector then a second third party debt collector that has not provided a bona fide contract and/or affidavits to attest that the debt collector as a valid party to the missing contract nor has not proven itself a rightful holder to any security or provided any authentic records from its alleged principal when requested clearly showing an attempt to defraud the beneficiary of money, which then turned into the collection agent, as attorney, claiming to represent the principal with no evidence, proof or affidavits from the principal to substantiate any of its claims. 
We feel the beneficiary is being taken advantage of by the attorney firm first acting as debt collector without any valid proof of claim then using their weight as attorneys to act as council for the alleged principal without any evidence of substance in an attempt to subvert the rights the beneficiary has under the law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation