I found a blog related to what you say.
And the case is:
Gulley v. Markoff & Krasny
While the 7th circuit admits a city fine is a transaction, they claim it is not consensual (and they claim it is from the plain language of FDCPA).
There is nothing in FDCPA related to debts having to be the result of a consensual transaction.
The funny thing is that they use old FTC opinions to justify that fines are not debt. But then the FTC changed its tune!
True. But an FTC opinion has some weight and/or can be used to make a stronger argument.
The stipulation order is very explicit:
Actually, the Texas Debt Collection Act "TDCA" (Tex. Finance Code 392.001 et seq.) allows actions against third party debt collectors as defined under FDCPA. Then there is a tie-in statute, where you can also sue for deceptive trade practices if they violated TDCA.
The city employees can claim government immunity if they acted within their job functions, but the goal is to sue MSB only and sovereign immunity does not extend to a third party debt collector even if they are collecting for a government entity.
Wis. Stat. § 902.01(2)(a)(b)
902.01 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
(2) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is any of the following:
(a) A fact generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
(b) A fact capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
I haven't located a Wisconsin example yet. I've seen examples of these titled as a "Request" and as a "Motion." A few examples that used "or in the alternative, supplement the record" language were for an appeal. I saw one example titled "Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendant's Motion to..." I'll keep looking when I've got some free time. Were you able to get a certified copy of the court ruling?
The FTC doesn't rule, per se. They have the power to initiate a court proceeding. Only a court can rule;
So, when I say that the FTC made a determination, that just means that they decided to allege violation(s) in a complaint.
The FTC's allegation in the AMS complaint (here) is pretty bare;
No court ever rendered an opinion, because the FTC and AMS settled the case and agreed to a stipulated order (here).
The stipulated order has much broader definitions of the terms "debt" and "consumer";
So, the FTC action in the AMS matter is not likely to be of much use in a private fdcpa case (unless, perhaps, the defendant is AMS).
You'll have to check, but I believe that texas doesn't allow any private right of action (through consumer statutes or otherwise) to prosecute deceptive acts, etc. You can, of course, complain to the FTC or the texas attorney general.