Sherman Affidavit

[variable66]

To all experts would the following be a good response to Sherman Affidavit? Please let me know if I need to change anything in it

Thanks

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I received your letter dated March 11, 2005 on March 15, 2005. I still DISPUTE the

Information and/or Affidavit you provided. Under Texas Law I dispute the accuracy of this alleged debt, demand an investigation be conducted, cease all your collection efforts, and delete all entries from my credit files.

§ 392.202. CORRECTION OF THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR'S OR CREDIT BUREAU'S FILES.

1. You are required make a written record of the dispute.

2. shall initiate an investigation of the dispute described by Subsections (-(e)

3. cease collection efforts until the investigation determines the accurate amount of the debt, if any

Furthermore, in your letter you quoted Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3d 974 (4th Cir. 1999)

These are parts of that case that you left out…

“( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt is disputed, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt and a copy of such verification is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector”

And

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)."

You should look at…

Guerrero vs. RJM Acquisitions, HAWAII 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15416 Decided July 9, 2004

the information contained in the letter would not have sufficed to verify the debt. The only information disclosed in the letter was the date that the account was opened, the date that the last payment was posted, the name and social security number listed on the account, and the current balance. The letter did not indicate the amount or basis of the charges underlying the current balance, nor did it indicate the dates on which such charges were incurred. See, e.g., Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999); [*30] Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991); Stonehart v. Rosenthal, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11566, 2001 WL 910771, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2001). The letter also failed to indicate whether interest was factored into the current balance, and, if so, at what rate and for what time period. Particularly in this case, where Defendant added interest at a rate different from the original, contractual rate for Plaintiff's account, the limited information provided in the June 14, 2002 letter was insufficient to verify the alleged debt.

[divemedic]

See the case Fields v Wilber Law Firm

http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26481&highlight=trumps