Jump to content

Counter or Cross Claim

Recommended Posts

Now Comes xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in pro per and in his Counter Claim against the defendant Linkin Blinkin and Nod on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated and states to this Honorable Court as follows;

1. The transactions and occurances which give rise to this action occurred in County State.

2. Jurisdiction and Venue are proper in this Court.

3. That the Plaintiff Alleged Debtor Street Rd Your city state zip is the real party in interest and is a consumer as defined under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act15 USC 1692 (3) and as such has standing to bring the aforementioned counter claim.

4. That Defendant Linkin Blinkin and Nod PC PO City State zip is a debt collector as defined under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act." 15 USC 1692(6) and was assigned by BANKSTER CROOK Bank sometime prior to Month year to collect an alleged debt claimed due and owing to BANKSTER CROOK Bank from Plaintiff

5. DUNNING LETTER: That Defendant Linkin Blinkin and Nod PC on or about Month year did send a dunning letter pursuant to 15 USC 1692 (g) to Plaintiff which was postmarked Month/year and received Month /year (Exhibit ) The letter was initialed but it did not identify who had sent the letter, no position or status was indicated, whether the signor was an attorney or whether the account had been reviewed by an attorney.

6. That the dunning letter submitted by Linkin Blinkin and Nod was on the law firm’s official letterhead and violated FDCPA and as such caused Plaintiff a great deal of anxiety and stress in the belief that a lawsuit was imminent when in fact plaintiff was not served a summons and complaint until Month/Year

7. That the dunning letter on the firm’s letterhead was in fact false, misleading, and an unfair method to collect a debt by creating undue fear in an attempt to intimidate the Plaintiff pursuant to 15 USC 1692e § 807. False or misleading representations (3) and (5) and Section 1692g thus causing the Plaintiff to suffer damages.

8. That Plaintiff did respond to the dunning letter on Month year and requested validation of the alleged debt. (Exhibit)

9. THE AFFIDAVIT: Linkin Blinkin and Nod did in fact attempt to validate the debt allegedly owed by plaintiff by submitting an affidavit of debt to the plaintiff. (Exhibit ) in violation of FDCPA 15 USC 807. False or misleading representations (13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.

10. That the affidavit of debt had as a heading BANKSTER CROOK BANK PLAINTIFF v. ALLEGED DEBTOR DEFENDANT and was designed to simulate court documents and as such constitutes making a threat of suit against the plaintiff when the plaintiff had only requested validation of the alleged debt. The affidavit was in itself a communication to collect a debt as it had ATTORNEYS’s name on the bottom of the second page, it was materially false, deceptive and misleading, the affidavit thus violated FDCPA 15 USC 1692e § 807. (3) and (5). False or misleading representations and Section 1692g

11. The plaintiff was unaware of formal action in the aforementioned matter until being formally served on Month/Year. As such plaintiff avers that the only purpose of submitting such a document as Exhibit is to cause undue emotional distress, harm and to intimidate and harass the plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt in violation of FDCPA

12. That the affidavit dated Month/Year was not a proper instrument to validate the alleged debt as it mimicked and simulated an official document of the Court, said affidavit was not filed with the court by the defendant until Month Year. Further the affidavit gave the appearance that a lawsuit had been instituted, that the document had been submitted as evidence to the Court and that the lawsuit was in progress this constitutes an attempt to intimidate and harass the plaintiff in violation of FDCPA Further the document has several meanings of which one or more are false including creating the belief that the affidavit was proof of service of process.

13. VALIDATION RESPONSE LETTER (Exhibit ) was sent to the plaintiff on letter head from the firm of Linkin Blinkin and Nod Attorney’s and Counselors at Law did not indicate that a meaningful review of the alleged had taken place, and no reference to the alleged account being pursued in a lawsuit was or was not indicated leaving the affidavit to speak to the matter and create the false impression that a lawsuit had already been filed. The validation response letter was signed by attorney and in this letter attorney did identify themselves as an attorney assigned to represent BANKSTER CROOK Bank

14. That the submission of the affidavit by Linkin Blinkin and Nod does not meet even the most minimal of requirement for a valid response to a request for validation of debt under FDCPA. The affidavit was further deceptive and confusing in that in its appearance as an official document of the court could be interpreted to be notification or proof of a lawsuit in progress rather than a validation of debt and thus constitutes a failure to validate the debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(B),

Which provides that if a consumer submits a timely, written dispute to a debt collector, “the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt . . and a copy of such verification . . . is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.”after the submission of a timely request for validation by the Plaintiff.


15. The letter in response to the request for validation (EXHIBIT ) sent by Linkin Blinkin and Nod have violated Michigan Occupational Code M.C.L. 339.901 et seq. specifically:

339.91(2) Notice of debt; dispute and verification of debt amount

If the consumer notifies the collection agency in writing, within 30 days after receiving the written notice, that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed, collection of the debt or any disputed portion of the debt shall cease until the collection agency obtains verification of the debt and a copy of the verification or judgment is mailed to the consumer by the collection agency. Verification of the debt or any disputed portion of the debt shall include the number and amount of previously made payments and the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor, or a copy of the judgment against the debtor.

Linkin Blinkin and Nod did NOT provide the number of previously made payments on the alleged account in their response to Defendants request for validation.


The (FALSE) affidavit (Exhibit ) is submitted to the Court for use as evidentiary support in collection of a debt. Its meaning is far less stated than assumed. It is a document designed to be false and misleading and designed to create the belief that the affiant completed certain steps to verify and validate the accuracy of the information that is being attested to and as such is in violation of the spirit and the law of the FDCPA.

Due to the nature of the current debt collection industry and the lack of oversight, standards, the high volumes of lawsuits filed, and automation of the process of running a litigation mill that is dependent of the failure of defendant consumers to respond thus securing default judgments in up to 94% of the cases filed. The defendants are unable to meet the requirements of the rules of evidence of providing proof of the records of the debt without misleading the state courts and consumer debtors in violation of federal and State Consumer Protection Laws.

Instead of providing actual admissible evidence of the proof required in a

breach of contract lawsuit, creditors such as BANKSTER CROOK Bank and BANKSTER CROOK Affiliate (with the knowledge of ATTORNEYS) designate “Robo-signers”. The source of their employment is not disclosed, they may or may not be an employee of the original creditor or may be an employee of any number of other entities where they may or may not have access to original or electronic records.

The Robo-signers claim to be authorized agents of BANKSTER CROOK and sign several hundred affidavits a day swearing under oath that they are a Litigation Support Spe******t rather than a business records custodian with personal knowledge of the facts, the affidavit relies on artful language to deceive and confuse the consumer, the court and all others who view the document. Questions such as who employs an “authorized agent, the source of their authorization (and many others) are not answered but are left to be assumed at great prejudice against the consumer/debtor.

The affiant claims in the affidavit to have personal knowledge of the processes by which BANKSTER CROOK maintains their books but not of the alleged debt; further no mention is made of any sale or assignment(s) of the debt, the claims to the amount of the debt, the interest rate, the default of the debt, the alleged credit card terms and conditions, and the record keeping procedures of the debt are not attested to have been verified or validated only that the affiant is familiar with the manner and method of record keeping procedures. The reader is left to assume that some effort at reviewing the records had taken place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Court is lead to believe through such artful language that the affiant has authenticated verified, validated and established the reliability of the records but the affiant does not even know what records will be later attached to the affidavit and in signing hundreds of affidavits daily the affiant has no time to verify or validate any of the information they are attesting to. The affiant literally only has seconds to sign each affidavit. This is further complicated by the lack of following any procedure as to the notarization of the affidavits and casts great doubt upon whether or not the rules regulating notaries are followed as well. This is true for both employees of Original creditors and Assignees of debt.

The process of creating verifying, and validating the information are suspect and the affidavit represents an unfair deceptive means to collect a debt and is a misrepresentation if not an outright fraud to the consumer-debtors and the state courts. There are two issues of deception, the first being the title of the affidavit which presents the affidavit of a document already in process and submitted to the court in a lawsuit and second, The Plaintiff questions the statements made on the affidavit and asserts that taken as a whole that the affidavit is materially false, deceptive and misleading in spite of the possibility that some information on the affidavit may be correct.

The standard operating procedure in the creation of these affidavits of debt operates as follows: Each affidavit is generated by computer software which merges the data

into an electronic form affidavit which is then printed. The affidavit is printed on a printer at the desk of a randomly selected employee, at an undisclosed unknown location. The person selected to sign the affidavit is based upon when the affidavit comes off the printer and which printer rather than any personal knowledge of the affiant of the account being collected. The affiants are referred to as Litigation Support Spe******ts but their actual job responsibilities, experience, and actual employer are unknown.

Each affiant (Litigation Support Spe******t ) signs between one Hundred (100) to Four Hundred (400) affidavits a day. Each (Litigation Support Specialst ) signs each affidavit without personal knowledge of the facts and statements contained in the affidavits.

Which affiant (Litigation Support Specialst ) signs which particular affidavit is randomly determined based on when the affidavits are printed rather than any knowledge of the account that is being verified.

The ATTORNEYS Defendants base their fee on a percentage of the amount collected contingency basis and thus have a vested interest in adding to the value of individual accounts and securing judgments as a whole.

The debt collector Defendant, through their own acts, by and through their agents and employees, and their policies and procedures, have violated the FDCPA which has caused damage to the Plaintiff. The affidavit does not constitute a valid response to validation and as such ATTORNEYS by serving the defendant on Month Year has continued an attempt to collect on a debt without validation of said debt.

The affidavit as presented is a false and deceptive document designed to employ the use of artful language and is an unconciousable means by which to attempt to collect a debt

The Defendant falsely represented the legal status of the alleged debt, violating 15 USC § 1692e, 15 USC § 1692e(2)(A) and other provisions of the FDCPA.

The debt collector Defendants made misleading and deceptive statements in the collection of a debt in violation of 15 USC § 1692e.

The Defendants served on debtors and filed Affidavits containing false

and misleading statements as proof of the existence, amount and status of

alleged debts in violation of 15 USC § 1692e; 15 USC § 1692f.

Defendants used the unfair, deceptive and misleading affidavits as a

response to a written dispute from a debtor and/or a request for


Defendant violated FDCPA 15 USC 807. False or misleading representations (13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.

The unfair, deceptive and misleading affidavit is not proper validation.

Defendant attempted to collect debts after having answered a dispute

and/or verification/validation request with the false, unfair, deceptive and

misleading affidavit in violation of 15USC 1692g.

The Defendants used unfair or unconscionable means to collect or

attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 USC § 1692f including but not

limited to 15 USC § 1692f(1).

The violations have harmed the plaintiff and unless enjoined will continue to harm

the public interest by causing Plaintiffs to pay collection charges that are

unfair deceptive, unlawful, and an unfair method of competition.

Furthermore Plaintiff asserts Linkin Blinkin and Nod violated the following Michigan Occupational Code M.C.L. 339.915. Prohibited acts

(a) Communicating with a debtor in a misleading or deceptive manner,

(B) Using forms or instruments which simulate the appearance of judicial process.

(d) Using forms that may otherwise induce the belief that they have judicial or official sanction.

(f) Misrepresenting in a communication with a debtor any of the following:

(i) The legal status of a legal action being taken or threatened.

(p) Using a method contrary to a postal law or regulation to collect an account


This action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of:

All affected persons in the State of Michigan

From whom defendants collected or attempted to collect a debt or

alleged debt;

Plaintiff respectfully requests certification of two classes

FIRST CLASS created when ATTORNEYS sent an initial dunning letter on the Firm’s letterhead and responding to a consumers request for validation by sending an Affidavit in a form substantially similar to Exhibit A and presented as an official court document as validation of the alleged debt in violation of FDCPA

SECOND CLASS all persons that ATTORNEYS filed suit against where a false affidavit in a form substantially similar to Exhibit A was used as evidence to secure a Summary Judgment in violation of the FDCPA

The class period for the FDCPA is One (1) year prior to the date of filing

this action.

The class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is


This assertion is based upon the fact that the Defendants threaten

to sue and do sue hundreds of consumers in the State of Michigan

by the use intimidation through affidavits designed to look like an official document of the Court.

The misrepresentations and unfair statements in the Affidavit is part of the

boilerplate of the form used to create the affidavit served and filed in

thousands of cases.

The Affidavits sent to consumers in response to a request for validation of a debt in collection matters is a form that is materially identical to the one received by all members of the proposed class.

There are questions of law and fact common to the class which

predominates over any questions peculiar to individual class members.

The principal issues include whether Defendants violated the FDCPA,


Using false representations or deceptive means to collect or

attempt to collect a debt;

Using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to

collect a debt;

There are no individual questions other than issues which can be

determined by a ministerial inspection of Defendants’ records. There are

no individual questions peculiar to individual class members.

Plaintiff has the same claims as the members of the class. All of the

claims are based on the same factual and legal theories.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class

members. Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter.

Plaintiff does not have any interests which might cause them not to

vigorously pursue this claim.

A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication

of this controversy.

Class wide damages are essential to induce Defendants to comply with

the law.

The interest of the class members in individually controlling the

presentation of separate claims against the Defendants is small because

the maximum statutory damages in an individual FDCPA action are


Certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(B)(3) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is appropriate. A class action is the only appropriate

means of resolving this controversy because the class members are not

aware of their rights. In the absence of a class action, a failure of justice

will result.

Certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(B)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is also appropriate. Defendants have acted on grounds

generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate declaratory

relief with respect to the class as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Congress enacted the FDCPA in order 'to eliminate abusive debt

collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

Plaintiff has been thus been injured and the injury in fact is one that is specific, traceable to the subject matter of the suit, and capable of being redressed by this court, as such Plaintiff prays that the Court will grant relief for himself and all others similarly situated.

Statutory individual damages for the named plaintiffs pursuant to the

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2);

Statutory class damages for the named Plaintiffs and putative class

members pursuant to the FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B);

If Incurred: Costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.


If Incurred: Costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to M.C.L. 339.901 et seq.

The Plaintiff’s rights as identified in the Michigan’s M.C.L. 339.901 et seq. were violated by Linkin Blinkin and Nod plaintiff prays for relief and statutory damages of 3 times the actual damages per violation as defendant asserts the violations were willful.

Declaratory Judgment that Defendants' practices violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and/or the Michigan Consumer Protection Act; and/or the Michigan Collection Agency Act;

Disgorgement of all interest, service charges, attorneys’ fees, collection costs, delinquency charge or any other fees or charges otherwise legally chargeable to the debtor on such claim, collected by Defendant ATTORNEYS which relied on the use of a false affidavit in securing a judgment or agreement to pay from affected debtor/consumers.

Injunctive relief;

For such other and further relief as may be just and proper by this Honorable Court.

This is to certify that the undersigned Alleged Debtor Pro Se that I have this day provided to the District Court a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Counter Claim to Plaintiff

Alleged Debtor

This is to certify that the undersigned Alleged Debtor Pro Se that I have this day mailed by United States certified mail a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Counter Claim to Linkin Blinkin Nod

Alleged Debtor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.