--- On Thu, 5/27/10, John Corsentino <eightx01@gmail.com> wrote: From: John Corsentino <eightx01@gmail.com> Subject: [MYRLANDsMETHODs] Any Advice Please? To: MYRLANDsMETHODS Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 9:54 PM After having three instances of Identity Theft in the past three years which threw our finances into a quagmire, I requested the information in the letter below from all of our creditors to try and get a handle on what was or was not ours. Several of our creditors were quite helpful and we are on good terms with them to this day. However, many of them, especially Bank of America, refused to help us in any way. In fact they began to make things worse almost as if they were the cause of the Identity Thefts and had something to hide. They fought us tooth and nail every step of the way until I just stopped making payments on the two accounts which were in my name alone.   The first thing I noticed was that they had made an entry on my credit report, which I expected, for non payment. The kicker was that now all of a sudden my wife's name had been added to the larger of the two accounts as a co-holder of the account. When we saw this I renewed my efforts many times over to get them to show something with either mine or hers signature's as proof of ownership of the account.   After almost a year of not hearing from them or getting a reply from my requests, they filed a complaint in Court, I suppose hoping I would ignore it and they would win by default. Well I answered the complaint line for line and requested a motion to strike an affidavit from some bank clerk stating he was personally familiar with this account and had the paperwork right in front of him. This shut them up for 5 or six months until I received a very large packet of paperwork containing Request for Documents, Request for Admissions, and Interrogatories all in one package and requiring that I have them back in 20 days. I dashed off a registered letter to the courts and the Lawyer stating I would need 20 days for submission of each request.   After I finished submitting in the 60 days I haven't heard a peep from the lawyers concerning this account. Now I receive the letter from the lawyers that they have a judgement against me for the smaller of the Bank Of America accounts. A judgement which I never had a chance  to fight because it was done behind my back. I just received a notice from the collection attorney stating I had a judgment against me for $8700.00. I had never received a summons or notice of an upcoming court date. I still have not received anything from the courts after a month.   I had received a collection notice from the lawyer stating that they had been hired to collect on this account. I sent them a letter (see below) which they never replied to. They just continued to proceed with collections. I watched my credit report for almost a year and saw them make inquiries and also add unpaid account entries as if they were the creditor and were not receiving payments on account as agreed.   Ultimately I received the Judgment notice out of the blue with them never having answered my requests below or letting me know about a court date coming up where I could fight them.   How do I go about fighting them now in court? I now have found out that they have put a lien on my house and property which caused us to not get a refinance which we would have otherwise have had with no problem.   We have been given the royal shaft and do not know what to do. We can't afford the lawyer we were going to hire with the refinance. Can you give us any advice? Everything we have done so far has been pro se  which I believe means without a Lawyer.   John and Tammy, Richmond, VA   ------------------------------------INITIAL REPLY LETTER MAILED TO LAWYER--------------------------------- CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT # 1234 5678 9123 4567   Our Name Our Address Our Address   Lawyer Name                                                                                                 February 03, 2009 Lawyer Address Lawyer Address RE      NOTICE OF ERRONEOUS PRESENTMENT AND DEMAND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE– OUR  NAME, ACCOUNT # 1234 5678 9012 3456 Dear Sir/Madame:   I recently received your presentment regarding the above listed account.  Please regard this letter as a formal Notice and Demand that your presentment is being returned without dishonor as erroneous and incomplete, and demand is hereby made for full disclosure with respect to the above listed account per UCC 3-501(b).   You are hereby noticed that BANK OF AMERICA has failed to provide either adequate and valuable consideration, or full disclosure of the material terms and conditions of the alleged agreement, particularly with respect to the circumstances surrounding the original issuance of the credit involved in this matter and the nature and extent of any finance charges assessed on the above account.    This Notice and Demand should not be perceived as a refusal to pay any valid debt.  However, based upon your conduct and the erroneous and incomplete nature of your presentment, I have questions regarding the validity of the debt you are alleging is due and owing. This letter is not a request for “verification” or “validation”, but a demand for proof of claim, such as may be proven by a certified copy of an original agreement, with my signature, and documentation specifically naming your company as a person entitled to enforce a commercial claim against me. John, Validation and proof of claim are one and the same thing yet you denied that therefore giving them the right to claim you never demanded validation as you are allowed to do under the law provided that you do so within 30 days of your receipt of their initial contact with you. If their first (initial) contact with you was by phone then you should have used my 18 questions to ask debt collectors every time they call . Each time you should have ended the call by demanding that they validate the debt. If their initial contact with you was by letter then you should have demanded validation immediately. Instead you denied that you were asking for validation. And the bit about commercial claim? If the credit cards were issued in your name(s) then it is a consumer transaction and not a commercial transaction   In order to determine the validity of your presentment under UCC 3-501(b), at a minimum I will require certified copies of the following: 1.  Your proof of claim related to the above listed account, 2.  any and all instruments in your possession that bear my signature that you believe support your claim per UCC 3-401(a)(1), 3.  any and all account and general ledger statements or accounting reports related to compliance with Financial Accounting Standards 95 & 140 as to the disputed account, 4.  any and all tax forms issued and filed with respect to the above listed account, including, but not limited to 1099 C & 1099 OID.  John, there is no requirement whatever that they answer any of those questions.   Until such time as you are able to provide the demanded information and resolve my concerns please consider this as a formal dispute regarding all charges, finance charges, penalties and other fees related to the above noted account.  In the event that you are unable or unwilling to properly respond to this notice and demand, please send me a billing statement or other communication indicating a zero balance due on the subject account.  Your failure to do so will constitute a fault per UCC 1-201(b)(17), and may require my filing 1099 A & 1099 OID forms with the Internal Revenue Service as appropriate. No John, not UCC but under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if the "presentment" was from a 3rd party debt collector. UCC only helps if the transaction involved some type of transaction where a surety or collateral was required. Automobile or real estate purchases. That type of thing.   Please understand that all communications, acts or omissions on your part may be used in litigation regarding your non-compliance with state and federal tax and consumer protection laws.  Your failure to respond to this Notice and Demand within ten (10) days will be construed as a waiver of any and all claims regarding the above-listed account, and will act as a confirmation that no further action may be taken on your part with respect to the subject account.  John, that is about the funniest thing I've heard all day.   Respectfully,     John & Tammy xxxxxxxxxx   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF HENRICO                                                                                                                                                                  ;                                                       FIACARD SERVICES, N.A. FKA BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (USA) Plaintiff,   v. JOHN xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and Tammy XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Defendants. AT LAW NO. 085CL09894844-00                      INTERROGATORIES   REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES   COMES NOW the Defendant, appearing pro se, to reply to Plaintiff’s Request for INTERROGATORIES for the purposes of the pending action only, in writing, within Defendant’s request for extension of  February 19, 2010 allowable time due to the financial difficulties of Defendant in procuring materials to complete request. In addition, Plaintiff requests the completion of three documents; 1.Request for admissions 2.Request for Production of Documents 3.Interrogatories, and states that all three should be answered within 21 days. This would seem an unreasonable request by Plaintiff. Defendant requests a more reasonable time frame to submit all three documents which would be a total of 63 days. Defendant also prays the court for recognition of Defendant’s Disability which further extends the time needed to prepare documents. Defendant John  XXXXXXXXXX is sometimes in a semiconscious state for days at a time due to severe chronic pain and heavy pain medication. Sorry John but they don't care about your pain ans suffereing. If the law says you have to respond within 21 days then you have to respond within 21 days. End of the argument.   All allegations of Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions are denied unless expressly admitted herein.   COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by counsel, and pursuant to Rule 4:8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, propounds the following Interrogatories to the Defendants, to be answered in writing and under oath within twenty-one (21) days of the date hereof. INSTRUCTIONS As used herein, the term "document" shall mean any and all types of recorded information, including, but not limited to, originals, typewritten, photostatic and other copies of correspondence, contracts, agreements, notes, minutes, deeds, documents, telegrams, mailgrams, work papers, memoranda, pleadings, intraoffice memoranda, expense vouchers, expense records, ledgers, books of account, receipt books, reports, invoices, statements, bills, printouts, papers, diaries, personal calendars, messages, books, letters, photographs, pictures, financial records, notebooks, recordings, sound recordings, film and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. As used herein, the term "communication" shall mean any and all written communications between two or more persons, or oral communications, including telephone communications, personal conferences, meetings or other exchanges between two or more persons. As used herein, the term "person" shall include natural persons, proprietorships, corporations, public corporations, municipal corporations, state governments, local governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, partnerships, groups, associations or organizations. As used herein, the terms "describe" or "identify" when used in reference to a natural person, shall mean to state his or her full name, present residential address, present business address, present business title, and present business affiliation, or, if the above are not known, such information as was last known by defendant. Note: This is a communication from a debt collection. The purpose of this communication is to collect a debt.   The terms "describe" or "identify," when used in reference to a document, shall mean to state the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, contract, etc.), its date, author or authors, its present location, including identification of the file or files where it may be found, and the name of the custodian or that individual responsible for the maintenance of such document or file. As used herein, the terms "and" and "or" shall mean and/or. As used herein, the singular of any work or phrase includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular. These Interrogatories are continuing in nature, so as to require you seasonably to file supplementary answers if you obtain further or different information prior to trial. I really like those a lot John. I need about 30 more similar descriptions and clarification. Notice how they snuck in their mini-miranda on you? Didn't see that one coming, did you John? INTERROGATORIES   As used herein, the term “ defendant” shall include persons known as “John L. Corsentino” and “Timi L. Corsentino. As used herein, all wording presented in italics and underlined shall be representing the words of defendant.     INTERROGATORY #1 State your full name, present address, date of birth, Social Security number, name and address of your employer, the full name of your spouse, his/her Social Security Number, and his/her employer. If answering on behalf of the Defendant corporation, state your full name and present address, office held with the Defendant corporation, Defendant's Federal identification number, and full name and address of the officers and directors of said corporation. ANSWER: Objection: Interrogatory No 1 is objected by the Defendant on grounds that it seeks information that is invasive of the Defendant’s privacy, that it is personal, confidential and private, and is irrelevant to any issue in this action, information not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence, and would result in the disclosure of information where such disclosure would violate the privacy rights of the Defendant.   Again: Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.     INTERROGATORY #2 Identify all persons known to you to have knowledge of any facts pertaining to matters set forth in this cause of action and for each such person, give his/her address and a synopsis of the nature, extent and basis of their knowledge of these transactions. ANSWER: Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time. Sorry John but you can't just deny it. Your response failed to properly respond and was not pertinent to the demand. You need to get real.   INTERROGATORY #3 State the name and address of each witness you may call to testify, either by way of deposition or in person at the trial of this case. State whether each witness is a factual or expert witness. If any witness is an expert, state his/her area of expertise, his/her qualifications as an expert in such area, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinion to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. ANSWER: Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time. Sorry John but you can't just deny it. Your response failed to properly respond and was not pertinent to the demand. You need to get real.   INTERROGATORY #4 If your response to any of the Requests for Admissions was a denial, or less than a complete admission, state all facts upon which you base any such denial or failure to admit. ANSWER: Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time. Sorry John but you can't just deny it. Your response failed to properly respond and was not pertinent to the demand. You need to get real.  INTERROGATORY #5 Give the specific factual basis which supports your defense.   Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time. INTERROGATORY #6 Do you admit indebtedness to the Plaintiff in any sum? If so, what sum? ANSWER: Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.   INTERROGATORY #7 State all facts which provide the basis upon which you have answered Interrogatory No.6. ANSWER:  Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.   INTERROGATORY #8 Identify all documents which you believe support your defense to this action. ANSWER: Denied. Since this Interrogatory is another instance of Plaintiff’s ongoing violations of Defendants rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §816. FDCPA SECTION 809 Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], Plaintiff has blatantly ignored defendant’s requests for account validation within the 30 day period described in section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, and continued to aggressively pursue collections in violation of Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, See Defendants Exhibit “A”, even after several instances of ID Theft which culminated in a letter from The United States Attorney’s Office. See Defendants Exhibit “B”, Defendant is should not be required to reply to yet another illegal violation of the FDCPA. Because of defendant’s lack of knowledge due to this violation, defendant cannot formulate an opinion at this time.   FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. FKA BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (USA)      John XXXXXXXXXX Tammy xxxxxxxxxx   By________________________________ Pro se     CERTIFICATE OF MAILING   I hereby certify that on this        day of              ,            , a true Copy of the foregoing reply to Interrogatories was Mailed by certified mail to the Plaintiff xxxxx and xxxxxxx/ xxxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Street, XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, xxxxxxxxxx XX                                                                                                                                _________________                                                                                                                              John  xxxxxxxxxx   John L. xxxxxxxxxx Tammy  xxxxxxxxxx 7 xxxxxxxxxxxx Road Mxxxxxxxxxxxxx, VA   John, that's really funny. And at the same time it  is also sad. You didn't respond to any of their interrogatories. You just spouted off the sme dumb response every time. It is a wonder the court didn't sanction you on top of it all. On the other hand, they just ignored your ignorance and filed for a summary judgment and you didn't object to that either. I really feel sorry for you, that you had to learn your lesson the hard way. Now there is nothing you can do but run and hide. Now you need to learn how to protect your assets and fight back that way and you had better do that real fast because the next thing that will happen is that they will demand garnishment proceedings and grab all the money you have in any bank account or any bank account on which your name appears whether it is your money or someone else's. They can come after any assets they can find including vehicles, tools, furniture and household items. You need to learn what they can and cannot do to you under both federal and state laws. You need to go to LAWDOG.COM WEB SITE and learn from what they tell you. I could have helped you if you had found out about me and my methods before all this happened to you. I can help you now but not nearly as well as I could have if you had became one of my students early on. As it is now you have to face the music. I don't face the music, I lead the parade. You could have too but now all you can do is hide and I can teach you how to do that too. But to get help you have to renounce all those silly ideas about UCC, 1099-OID, presentment, dishonor, A4V and all the rest of that nonsense. Bill Bauer Creditwrench Creditwrench web site (405) 237-2174 (405) 227-9423

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (2)

Recent Activity:

• New Members 2

Visit Your Group

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

---

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

---

Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey!

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Creditwrench Debt Validation Letter

billbauer Senior Member

Quote:

Originally Posted by KreditKard I read the back and fine print and I learned that I need to write them within 30 days or they assume that this is a valid debt.

I assume that you are going to pay me $5,000 for responding to your post too. I assume lots of things but just because I assume something don't make it true. Maybe, in lots of cases wish would be a more appropriate word than assume. But one thing I do know and that is that a duck knows something more than either a debt collector or a debt collection lawyer and that is where to stick his bill.

[quote] Do I just type up a short letter and mail it in? I would appreciate some advice on how to handle this situation. Is 2002 within the SOL for California? Thank you for your help.[/quote]

Statute of limitations in California is 4 years. A short letter? Yes, I like short letters very much. The shorter the better. I had a lady call me last evening and tell me about this great debt validation letter she got from somewhere. Five pages long. She said it had lots of great questions debt collectors have to answer. Problem with that is that nowhere in FDCPA does it give you the right to ask them anything at all. Of course neither does it say you can't ask them any questions but that is beside the point. The point is that asking them anything is pointless.
My debt validation letter don't ask them anything, it tells them what I want and what I want is all that matters to me. As far as I am concerned anything else is irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, my letter is now just 3 short paragraphs long and I'm thinking of getting rid of one of those. That first paragraph seems important but in reality about all it does is confuse many of those who attempt to use my letter. I think it would be better to just take it out entirely and get the job done with my DUH letter which is nothing more than a photo copy of the letter they sent me stapled to my debt validation letter. The other two paragraphs are also short and sweet. I just tell them what I want. I'm not interested in teaching them how smart I am. All I want to know is how smart they are. If I have to educate them then I'm going to make their education as expensive as possible for them. I charge at least $1,000 per lesson and more if I can get it. I got one lawyer I'm getting ready to teach pretty soon. Right now that lawyer needs about 5 or 6 lessons and the fight hasn't even got going good yet.

Now then, about that statute of limitations thing. Why are you even worried about that at this time other than as general information to be used at a later time? In the case of a dishonored check I'd say that the start of the statute of limitations would have started 30 days after the check bounced or maybe even when it bounced the second time. The statute of limitations runs until such a time as they file a lawsuit or it expires because of the 4 year limitation in California law.
So what does that mean to you? Does it mean that they can't continue to attempt to collect after the 4 years or does it mean they can't file a lawsuit after the 4 years has passed? Truth is they can do either one forever with no time limitation. Nothing in the law says they can't attempt to collect after the 4 years and nothing in the law says they can't file a lawsuit after the 4 years. But then nothing in the law says they can't go fly a kite or jump in a lake either. So the final outcome is up to you, not them. You have two choices. You can either use the Caspar Milquetoast method of credit repair and make the debt go away quite easily or you can take a much more agressive approach and quite possibly end up getting paid to teach them a few lessons they really don't want to learn. Its up to you but in either case I'd recommend starting off with a nice short validation letter accompanied by a DUH letter

Caspar Milquetoast method of credit repair

Caspar Milquetoast

Caspar Milquetoast

Caspar Milquetoast