• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About demoncasterouter

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings


  • Interests
    ministering, fishing, playing with my kids
  • Occupation
    Band Director/Disciple of Jesus

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. Hey guys!!!!!! Long time no-see! I would like to hear from some of you old-timers that remember me. Well, I'm back in credit-hell again! Did it to myself again. Well, I guess that's what this forum is for huh? Anyway, I'll get off the psychiatry couch......anyone heard of NCC Business Services?
  2. She already has subsidized, non-subsidized, etc. I was just wondering if there was another place we could go where credit is not a factor.........?
  3. I need to get my wife a student loan. The problem is that I've gone back into credit hell again (probably in the 500's). So where is the easiest place to go to get approved? Thanks!
  4. I think it's $150. That's what I found in my pro se packet from 2003 last night. That's the last time I sued.
  5. Can I file an FDCPA petition in a federal appellate court, or is that for appeals only? It's right here in town, and would be much easier. If I have to go to the next bigger city I will, but...... Also, since the stuff happened here, that makes this town the proper venue, correct? (I'm just making sure B4 I have to fly somewhere......)
  6. Yo......what up, my Credit dawgs? Need the process server info for Encore Receivables, or just point me to where I could find that info, please.........OH wait.....don't I have to call my state AG or their state AG for that???? I forgot.........? Also, I have to serve them in Kansas, don't I?
  7. Well, let's have it....? Can you PM it or something?
  8. I didn't say anything about the debts being old, etc., as to not admit anything about the debts, just in case they decided that they wanted to further shoot themselves in the foot. As far as who they work for, this is another company that is set up to mask as a creditor (the original CA), and then have another CA say that they are representing them, so they can pull some crap. Similar to the NCO/MEDCLR thing we had going around here a few years ago.
  9. The company here sent me a dunning letter, and claimed that the first company was their "client", thereby trying to make me believe that the first company is a creditor, instead of a debt collector (DECEPTIVE....). This is on two debts that went past the SOL when I was in my 20's. Both companies are CA's and owned by the same guy. So I had a little more leverage here, and I just let 'em have it! Enjoy: Demoncasterouter 123 Anywhere street Middleof, TX. 99999 Deceptivejerks Inc. 999 Webuyolddebt Blvd. Wherever, USA 00000 1-13-2006 Re: Alleged Acct. #’s: 30303030303 and 4040404040 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me from your company. Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 ( that your claim is disputed and validation is requested. I am also advising you that attempting to claim that Scumbucketsiswe is your “client”, is false and misleading. You are attempting to persuade consumers to believe that Scumbucketsiswe is something other than what they are: a debt collection company. Richard Cranium is the Principal for both of these companies, which are collection agencies. The FDCPA strictly forbids this type of deception in debt collection. I suggest you check with federal and state laws. Then I suggest you discontinue any and all further pursuit of this alleged debt, before I am forced to bring suit against Scumbucketsiswe and Deceptivejerks Inc, for violating the FDCPA twice and the Texas Debt Collection Act twice as well. This is an attempt to correct your records and your debt collection practices, and any further attempt at collection without full validation, will result in action taken against you in federal court. Sincerely, Demoncasterouter, you worst nightmare! And I'm comin' to cast the demons out of your company!
  10. They quit calling. Haven't seen a dunning ltr or validation, so maybe they're's amazing how well this stuff works!
  11. If I remember correctly, during the NCO/MEDCLR saga, the deception came when NCO tried to claim that the FDCPA didn't apply to MEDCLR b/c they were the "OC", or "Client". When they responded with this type of answer, the deception happened when NCO was attempting to hide MEDCLR in their follow-up letters as not being bound by the FDCPA, since they were NCO's "client". This is designed to throw off the consumer and make them believe that MEDCLR (or whoever else) is a creditor, and not a debt collector. That is deception. And this is the same thing that this company is attempting to do.
  12. I had only 4 violations w/ one CA, and they settled in their lawyers office. You have at least 6. So you might go ahead and file. I don't know how you'd show proof of the phone call violations, but.......
  13. Would that be large intestigator, or small intestigator...? Sorry, couldn't pass that one up........
  14. A letter sent to me from a CA (We'll call them Scumoftheearth), says this: "We represent the above client, Bottomfeedersareus, who has purchesed your defaulted account........" So I looked up Scumoftheearth and Bottomfeedersareus, and they are the same. So we have another CA trying to pull the same tricks that NCO and MEDCLR used to pull. Is this type of stuff under "Deceptive Practices" in the FDCPA (3 years ago, I would've been able to quote section and number, but I'm so outta the loop....)? And if you would kindly quote, I would be much appreciative.......
  15. Here's the letter I just fired off concerning this: Demoncasterouter Youmessedwiththewrongconsumer Drive Tooclose, TX. 99999 CluelessCA 1111 Wedontknowschidtt Street Closetoconsumer, TX. 99990 1-10-2006 Re: Alleged Acct. #:*&^%$ To Whom It May Concern: I have received your mail sent to me dated 1-9-06. While you have noted this alleged account as “disputed” in your office, this notation still does not allow you to legally continue pursuit of this alleged debt. You have not provided full validation of this alleged debt in accordance with F.D.C.P.A. 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (. If I receive no response from you concerning this letter, then I will assume that this is your final statement regarding the validity of this alleged debt, and that you are foregoing the remaining 9 days to provide full validation. Therefore, ANY further collection attempts would be illegal on your part, according to the above mentioned chapter, and according to the Texas Debt Collection Act 392.202(a). This includes: - Sending any further dunning letters - Making any phone calls to me concerning this alleged debt - Or reporting ANY information of this alleged debt to ANY credit reporting agency, negative or otherwise from this day forward I will be checking my credit reports from the various credit reporting agencies within the next 30 days and beyond. As the situation stands now, if I find ANY reference to this alleged debt reported to any credit bureaus, I will not hesitate to file suit against your company, immediately. You would be well advised to close this account immediately, and discontinue any further collection activity. I feel it only fair to warn you that I will hold (your company) liable for any further collection activity, without providing me proper validation, by filing suit. And just so you know, I do not file suit in small claims court, I use the federal court system. Sincerely, Demoncasterouter