Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chargedoff & 3 collectors already? Sure We need to ask ourselves what, is at this point, is a VERY important question; How can we dramatically increase the "nuisance" value of your argument? One answer might be the use of a new strategy which is slowly emerging as effective. Have you seen this; DixiesCYA If Sherman got one of these I bet they'd come around. I'm seriously thinking of revising it a bit further. Suppose you did file a suit and include ALL parties. AFTER they get served you might send a letter like this and agree to DROP them from the suit AFTER they provide the necessary information. AND remove the TL until this is reolved. Even if only temporarily. But that's just ONE tactic. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chargedoff & 3 collectors already? Oh Sears huh? Nutz. lol Let me review the whole situation and see if I can help. (That doesn't always work either) .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chargedoff & 3 collectors already? Here's another stratgey I'm tryin to dig up info on. If you sue the atty., in his "private" capacity, he can't represent himself. That means he'd have to hire yet another atty., to represent him. Believe it or not BBauer came up with that one. Shew, talk about bein a pain in the butt. LOLOL .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chargedoff & 3 collectors already? the CA is Sherman Aquisitions... they're everywhere...[font] *looks around* lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chargedoff & 3 collectors already? yes i have... thanks butch. i s'pose i should send sherman a validation demand and include all correspondence i've had with their attorneys, dispute the TL with the CRAs, and then use this guerilla tactic if/when all else fails. i'd like sherman to violate my rights directly a few times before i start threatening them tho. ideally, i'd like to be just enough of a polite pain in the arse to keep them at bay, and let some time pass so that a settlement-for-deletion deal could be made. DH just got a new position at his job that may bring in some nice commissions this summer, so if i can hold them off until then, i'd be willing to settle. i know it sounds weird to offer money to creeps who've violated my rights, but this was my account. I just want it off my reports, and i dont know if i have the cajones to sue. thanks again! i was so thrilled to see all of your responses!
argh I'm getting aggravated. From what i've read (and read, and read) I may have to let a judge decide if Sherman is responsible for what their attorneys have done. Is there anything anyone can think of that proves a CA is responsible for what their attorneys do?
Crowmom. Go over here and see if there's anything in here you can use: http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/azcuenaga/cac94.htm B. Potential Liability Recently, the Commission issued an administrative complaint alleging that American Family Publishers, one of the largest sellers of magazine subscriptions in the nation, knew about and approved deceptive debt collection letters sent by its collectors, thereby assisting conduct that was unlawful under the FDCPA. Under the terms of a Commission-approved settlement agreement, American Family Publishers is required to instruct its collectors to comply with the FDCPA in the future and is prohibited from misrepresenting either that an attorney is actively and substantially involved in the collection of any debt, or that legal action with respect to any alleged debt is about to be or will be initiated. Here's the AFP case Newsrelease: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F93/amerfamil4.htm .
butch, thank you thank you thank you.... I'll take every possible angle i can. I remember this Am Fam Pub. thing now that you bring it up. I knew i'd read something somewhere about this. thank you so much. now go get some sleep, lol. I can't believe its this late and I'm still on here. I'm turning into a true blue creditnetter, arent I.
ok, back to basics: ok. I'm pretty sure the original contract is nowhere to be found. its over thirteen years old. sherman is claiming they will add interest at 9%. My plan is to send a validation letter that also includes threats to report them to all the regulatory agencies, and hints at the fact that they probably don't even have the original contract. Would it be ok to combine all 3 concepts into one letter? I've already done the 'average joe' validation approach to their attorney. i havent sent sherman anything directly yet. should my first direct communication w sherman be more 'average'? i'm not sure which way to go. i do know i've been going back and forth with this long enough, and i want to get something in the mail tomorrow.
Originally posted by crowmom does the validation demand I sent to the attorney count for anything? I mean, shouldnt the law firm have let sherman know that i demanded validation? Can sherman wiggle out of this now? --------------------anyone?------------------------------------------------------------ anyone? >------------>> LB59
