chrisbbadd

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About chrisbbadd

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Rocky Mountain High
  1. Without recourse and without representations of warranties, it blows my mind that these are even submitted in a debt lawsuit and if we had a legitimate legal system the judge would throw these out when objected to by the Defendant. These ridiculous fifth generation "bill of sale" phonies, when allowed in evidence by the "Court" should be responded to with copies of one hundred dollar federal reserve notes in the amount of the alleged balance owing. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  2. What you sent was a partial cease and desist. You told them to cease and desist any phone (verbal) contact, you only do business in writing in regards to this alleged debt. Hence a partial cease and desist.
  3. I had an incident where I was assisting a friend in a case. We questioned everything the junk debt buyer submitted and also had a resident of Virginia write to the Virginia Commonwealth Notary and had them send us what they received from the Commonwealth and low and behold the Notary signature on file was not the signature certified on an Affidavit of Debt used against my friend. This happens all the time by the way. In regards to them not having your correct gender, I would also use that to discredit them. I know some people are so sick and tired of 4th or 5th generation copies of supposed bill of sales being used which aren't even legibile, that they are now making copies of one hundred dollar bills and filing them with their answers. In an honest world, the original document would be filed in a lawsuit for money. But when junk debt that has already been satisfied through write-offs on corporate taxes and bad debt insurance payments, there is no way an original creditor is going to supply original evidence of debt in these bulk sales to junk debt buyers, and you know they send copies of "debt" to numerous third parties because you have been dunned by nurmerous Attorneys/junk debt buyers many times on the same account. You all know on Mortgages that they were selling them over and over in securitization schemes, while at the same time betting that the debt would never get repayed and consequently profiting multiple ways.
  4. They should have had admissible evidence with them when they filed the lawsuit. Have a legitimate bill of sale from the Original Creditor to Midland Funding stating that the exact account with your name on it was purchased and that all information in regards to this transaction is fully warranted and guaranteed as accurate. When this happens be sure and contact me because it will never happen. There's no original creditor that would ever enter into a transaction like that, thus they transact these bulk portfolio sales with one bill of sale and no guarantee of anything being accurate in regards to hundreds or thousands of accounts purchased for pennies on the dollar. Quite a racket they have going and to think there are uninformed consumers who actually fail to appear and fight these bogus claims.
  5. Don't be afraid to ask for the document listing the sale from the original creditor to the junk debt buyer which specifically identifies your name and alleged account number.
  6. Sorry to hear you hired an Attorney, junk debt buyers can be beaten by pro se all day every day, especially an old debt that has been sold over and over. I wish you the best.
  7. You say this debt's been sold at least three times that you know of?? There's no way I would pay them a penny. I've never seen a junk debt buyer able to prove ownership of any debt.
  8. If it's not legit, then it's a FDCPA violation. You are looking good!
  9. I find that it is common for Attorney Debt Collectors to file suits in the original creditors name when in fact the debt has been sold off after charge-off. Some seem surprised or in denial, but it is quite common.
  10. Good ol Portfolio Recovery Associates and their "Bill of Sale" that mentions an "exhibit A" but they never produce one, just some "electronic data file" printed by PRA and sent from HSBC's electronic records. They can't decide which date the "sale" occurred on so you should really have fun with their "evidence" and pick it apart or expose it as being assinine in nature.
  11. Coltfan1972 knows exactly what he's talking about in terms of what is admissible evidence.
  12. C'mon, you know they never make these "legal spe******ts" "custodian of records" "authorized agents" available...lol...
  13. 3.(m) is what kills them, along with the fact they are NAF awards and noncollectible especially if initiated by Wolpoff & Abramson/Mann Bracken.
  14. I'd love to see the Bill of Sale for Midland and then Portfolio. You are in a great position right now. You have an opportunity to expose this whole debt collection game. Keep in mind it is in the Rules of Professional Conduct that this Law Firm is supposed to keep its client up to speed on case developments and vice versa Seems like Midland should have filed for dismissal if they indeed sold the alleged debt to Portfolio. By all means dispute the Portfolio dunning letter and expose this charade at the August 9th Pretrial Conference. You have FCRA violations to consider also.