1) There is no legal difference betwen "verification" and "validation" for purposes of the FDCPA. 2) There is no FDCPA requirement that creditors or collection agencies "verify" or "validate" debts within 30 days. 3) There is no need for the creditor or collection agency to produce signed copies of ANYTHING to "verify" or "validate" a debt for purposes of the FDCPA. Here's a snippet from a 1999 Court decision: "Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. See Azar v. Hayter, 874 F.Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D.Fla.), aff'd, 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1048, 116 S.Ct. 712, 133 L.Ed.2d 666 (1996). Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." S.Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. In the present case, Gallerizzo, after receiving assurances from NationsBank that the sums were owed, verified the debt amounts in his January 18th letter to Plaintiffs' counsel and forwarded a copy of the bank's computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred. See Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir.1991) (holding that computer printouts which confirmed amounts of debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred constituted sufficient verification). Thereafter, in a January 19th letter to counsel, Gallerizzo restated the amount of the inspection fees and indicated that the amounts were correct. Nothing more is required." That's from Chaudhery v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999). Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. So, if any of the folks who write the letters and talk about the 30days with respect to the FDCPA (not the FCRA) have info suggesting that any of the above is incorrect, it would be great if you posted it. But please, provide support for what you are saying -- real statutes and real cases -- so that we can take all take a llok. Thanks.