CA questions, new to posting...

If you want to put an end to the misery of their incessant calls there is only one way to do so other than paying their demands which is not going to be to your benefit. Each time they call you interrupt their spiel with a few well placed questions.

(1) What is the full name of the company are you calling from?
(2) What is their address?
(3) What is their phone number?
(4) What is your full name"
(5) What is your social security number?
Why do I want your social security number? Because when I file a suit and bring you to this state and county to answer the complaint against you I want to be certain that I am sueing the right person. That's why!

If they refuse to answer any of the first 4 questions they have violated the portion of FDCPA that says they must give full and meaningful disclosure of who is making the call and the purpose of the call. Of course, one of the results of the fifth question is likely to be a monotonus humming sound that probably indicates they hung up. I'm sure you know the sound well. (LOL)

And do not think that I am only being frivolous because the individual employee can be sued for his/her violations of the law. And their boss can be sued separately on top of that.

While nobody really wants to run around filing lawsuits at every drop of the hat, I'm afraid its going to take a little bit of that once in a while to wake the abusers up and make them realize that the law applies to them as well as to the debtor.

Yes, there sure is. Get a copy of a full cease & desist letter (I think there is one on this board and if not I have one posted on mine) and have your parents fill it out and send it off to them. Of course, you may have to actually prepare it for them but have them sign it at the very least.

Yes, but you need more than one violation of law to whang them with or its not likely to get you any results. And if it is an original creditor calling you it is going to be a bit tougher to enforce it on them but it can be done if you are willing to file a suit on them and stick it to them. If you are not willing to do that then there are other remedies available to you if you have all the call waiting, caller ID and privacy manager on your line.

There is a little item sold rather widely now known as a telezapper that helps in some cases but is more helpful in combatting unwanted sales calls than it is in combatting collection calls but privacy manager is even more effective by far.

My line is equipped with a whole range of such goodies including telezapper, tape recorder, music playback system so I can let them listen to religious messages of my choice or sweet music from the radio or just about anything else while I go shave or answer a few emails or whatever. When I finally get back to them it seems that their patience has been totally and completely exhausted.

 

Thanks, but there is even more to it than that when it comes to phone calls. One needs to keep a very accurate record of all those phone calls and what transpired, date, time and whatever.

Although it isn't widely thought of or realized that very first phone call is extremely important in racking up violations.

Here is why. If you read the law where it talks about initial contact it means just exactly that. It says that within 5 days after their initial contact they must send you a dunning letter which must contain all of the required notices and must not be threatening in any way that could be construed by the debtor in such a way as to overshadow the language advising him of his rights.

How many times have debtors received multiple phone calls over multiple days before he ever gets anything in writing? Well, you get the picture so don't bother trying to guess how many times that law has been broken. (LOL)

Therefore it also logically follows that a debtors demand for validation may not be timely if he does not demand validation within 30 days of that initial contact.

But then on the other hand how is the collector to prove that to a judge if the debtor introduces that first letter in court and further evidence that he relied on the date of that letter as a means of judging whether or not he was in fact timely with his demand for validation?

Since the law is supposed to rule in the manner most lenient to the unsophisticated consumer and even more so to the pro se litigant I think the collector would have a hard time trying to prove the pro se had been untimely.

 

Why be frightened of the court?

For those whose knees turn to jelly at the mere thought of facing a judge let me offer just a bit of help.
JUDICIAL NOTICE

[judge's name] and all other officers of the court who may come in contact with the matter of Dewey Cheatum & Howe v. John Q. Citizen are noticed under the authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v. Kerne, 404 U.S. 509-421, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F. 2d. 25, and Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F. 3d 898(8th Cir. 2000). In re Hainesro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards tan bar licensed attorneys.

Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re: Anastasoff litigants' constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where parties are similiarly situated.

So, you can readily see that the courts are supposed to actually help the pro se litigant to understand any errors he may make in his pleadings or motions. Unfortunately, getting them to do what the law apparently demands may be another matter entirely.

 

Why be frightened of the court?

For those whose knees turn to jelly at the mere thought of facing a judge let me offer just a bit of help.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

[judge's name] and all other officers of the court who may come in contact with the matter of Dewey Cheatum & Howe v. John Q. Citizen are noticed under the authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v. Kerne, 404 U.S. 509-421, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F. 2d. 25, and Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F. 3d 898(8th Cir. 2000). In re Hainesro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards tan bar licensed attorneys.

Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re: Anastasoff litigants' constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where parties are similiarly situated.

So, you can readily see that the courts are supposed to actually help the pro se litigant to understand any errors he may make in his pleadings or motions. Unfortunately, getting them to do what the law apparently demands may be another matter entirely.

 

Why be frightened of the court?

tprib
=================
Why are you going through all this when all you have to do is send them the Validation Letter.?????????
?????????******************?????????????????

The END ************************* LB 59

 

Re: Why be frightened of the court?

Validation Letter? Thats all we gotta do?
Is it really just that simple? Sorry about that , but both common sense and hard experience prove otherwise.

 

Re: Why be frightened of the court?

You would have until at least March 10th to send the letter. Even the 14th or 15th would not be unreasonable. I would recommend getting it into the mail not later than March 6 however to be sure you don't have any arguments about it from them. Better be on the safe side.

 

Re: Why be frightened of the court?

Then I would get it in the mail first thing tomorrow and act like it was timelyand maybe you will get away with it.

Bet you know better than to do that by now.(LOL)

By all means.

Is it being handled by a collector now or what? I would still send it either way.

Thanks. You didn't see even one tenth of what is actually there and my message board has way more than the website does.

 

Re: Why be frightened of the court?

OK, I am curious. If the CA can prove it is more than 30 days after contact what good does validation do? Isn't making a payment admission of the debt? When the CA comes back and says we are not bound by the FDCPA need for validation due to your acceptance of the debt, how does a person in this position respond? I am just trying to get a better understanding of this whole process. Thanks.

 

Re: Why be frightened of the court?

They still have to validate it. but after the 30 days has passed they do not have to cease collection efforts until they validate as they do if the demand is timely.

That makes no difference either. One can demand validation regardless of any other factor. Even judgment rendered and paid cannot stop proper demand for validation(proof) of the debt. After judgment is filed it just has to be accomplished with motions to the court rather than simple demand for validation.

Time to lay one on them then.

based on the way I understand that part of the question, again one responds with validation.

 

Re: Why be frightened of the court?

That is your first mistake. You are letting them get under your hide. Don't let that happen. Each time they call there are a series of questions you should ask them. Here they are.
(1) What is the name of the company you are calling for?
(2)What is their mailing address?
(3)What is their telephone number?
(4)What is your full name. First and Last?
(5)What is your Social Security number?
If they want to know why you want that tell them that you need it so that when you sue that person you want to be sure you summons the right person.
"You can't sue me!"
Bet me Buckwheat! You just keep on calling up every hour and see if I don't sue you personally and your company as well.
Then just hang up and be done with them.
They are violating the law and you can sue the heck out of them.

Thats just to scare you.

Thats where they check to see what bank you got all those millions of dollars hid out in, how many Rolls Royces you have in your garage. Remember that word they used? Asset research? Just take those first 3 letters in the first word and you get the idea of what they want. That and all it's fixtures. (LOL)

Proper telephone procedures as outlined above and the validation letter are your next steps.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't need any excuse. Just do it.