Theorist

Debt Collection Law Firm Stealth Strategy

Recommended Posts

Quit whining. 

Many of us are open to thinking outside the box.  The arbitration strategy was considered lunacy when it was first proposed.  There were some nasty battles fought here. 

Thing is, those of us advocating the arbitration strategy had numerous victories over our creditors.  We didn’t whine about people not believing us.  We beat the creditors and eventually others came around. 

One difference is the arbitration strategy was based on facts and laws and actual cases.  Cases that could be verified online.  

Some of us tried aspects of the arbitration strategy that worked, and others that did not work   That is how the strategy was refined  

If you want to win an argument, try it in court and either win and show us your victories or lose and take your lumps.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 2:48 PM, Theorist said:

My instinct therefore is to want to point-out to the court the flaws in what they've provided, but I'm working on figuring-out the appropriate timing and format for doing that according to civil procedure, and how one phrases such assertions, if at all.

Sounds like you have all the answers. Let us know in a couple months how that judgment tastes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'll whine if I wanna whine.

I may win my case or I may lose. Neither outcome will improve the IQ level on display in some these comments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 11:16 PM, Theorist said:

I'd like to please ask, how during discovery do I request documentation of the relationship between the original creditor named as plaintiff in a suit and the debt collection law firm claiming to represent them? What might such documentation be called?

Note that the above is my only question.

The document may be called a Retainer Agreement or Retainer Agreement for Attorney Services.  Research "Attorney-Client Privilege" and "Work Product Doctrine" and read the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. (I am not a lawyer.) Research whether Retainer Agreements are or are not privileged unless they reveal a confidential communication of legal advice, and if they are or are not protected as work product. 

Check the Michigan Court Rules Civil Procedure (MCR) Chap 2. Subchapter 2.300 Discovery  for the rules on requests for production of documents, interrogatories and requests for admissions. Follow those rules to draft discovery requests. 

In Michigan the rule for signatures is MCR 1.109(E)(5). Rule 1.109 Court Records Defined; Document Defined; Filing Standards; Signatures; Electronic Filing and Service; Access

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brotherskeeper, thank you very much. I appreciate your help.

On my own I've uncovered a few other potential leads but am still trying to verify their relevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brotherskeeper said:

Research whether Retainer Agreements are or are not privileged unless they reveal a confidential communication of legal advice, and if they are or are not protected as work product.

I emailed my former MI attorney and asked him.  He stated the retainer agreement is a work product and protected by attorney client privilege.  The only way the law firm representing Capital One could reveal its content would be with the express written consent of the client/Capital One.  The court cannot compel them to disclose the information if they disagree and it is immaterial to the case as the complaint is filed.  He also put the chances that a major bank waives that confidentiality privilege at ZERO.   Especially considering they do not typically hire a law firm on a case by case basis but as part of a global retainer.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Theorist said:

If there is indeed no way for me to independently verify that the firm who filed the paperwork for the complaint against me represents the entity they are claiming to be plaintiff,

Ok, let's think about this for a minute.  You incurred a debt with Cap1 and never repaid it.  As part of your contract with Cap1, you agreed that Cap1 may sue you in court to collect any debts you don't pay back.  So say some random person goes to the courthouse and files a lawsuit against you in the name of Cap1 that just happens to be for the same amount and account that you had with Cap1.

First, why would anyone not affiliated with Cap1 file a lawsuit in Cap1's name?  Second, even if some rando did file a lawsuit in Cap1's name that happened to match the amount and account you had with Cap1, the rando isn't going to collect a dime on any resulting judgment - any judgment resulting from a lawsuit which names Cap1 as the plaintiff is going to be a judgment for Cap1 ONLY.  (A lawyer representing Cap1 does not get their fees paid directly from the defendant.  If a crooked lawyer was trying to cash in, they would have to ask Cap1 for fees.  Do you think Cap1 would just stroke a check to any lawfirm that puts their hand out?  If so, why bother with the lawsuit shtick? Just send an invoice and Cap1 will pay.)  Ipso facto, it matters not the name of the person/entity that files the lawsuit paperwork.  All that matters for the purposes of any judgment entered are the names of the plaintiff and defendant.

Here's my final attempt at trying to get you to accept common sense.  Whatever standard you believe Cap1 is obligated to adhere to, so are you obligated.  If you were to hire a lawyer to represent you, and Cap1 claimed your signature was not sufficient evidence that your lawyer is authorized to represent you, you would have to accept a default judgment against you for failure to appear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Theorist "The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry"  FTC (2013)

"In addition to the FDCPA, debt buyers and other debt collectors are governed by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”18 An act or practice is “unfair” under Section 5 if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”19 A practice is considered “deceptive” if “there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.”20 Certain practices by debt buyers and other collectors that violate the FDCPA also violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.21 The Commission uses the FTC Act to stop unfair or deceptive debt collection practices by creditors22 and others that are not covered by the FDCPA.23"

 

BV80 has asked you repeatedly if you've checked your credt agency reports to see if/how the debt's ownership is being reported :


"Another federal statute governing debt buyers is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”),24 which imposes data privacy and accuracy standards on consumer reporting agencies (often referred to as “credit bureaus”) and entities, including debt buyers and other debt collectors, that use consumer reports or furnish information to them. Debt collectors and other entities that furnish information to consumer reporting agencies (often referred to as “furnishers”) violate the FCRA if they report information they know or have reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate.25 The FCRA also allows consumers to dispute the completeness or accuracy of information, including delinquent accounts, on their credit reports, and requires furnishers to conduct “reasonable investigations” of disputes submitted directly to them concerning the accuracy of information reported.26"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A debt collection law firm claims that Capital One is the plaintiff in a complaint against me. This thread is about how to get from Capital One, and only from Capital One, confirmation that Capital One agrees that it is indeed the plaintiff in the complaint.

Everything else is a tangent.

Tangents are fine, but those who can't understand the difference should post elsewhere. 

Clydesmom's last post above is very helpful. She says there is no way, she gives reasons why, she's not being personally insulting about it, she's not mischaracterizing my point to make it easier to brush-off, and she even took the time to phone a lawyer about it. I appreciate that a ton. Her answer does not provide a solution to the puzzle that's presented, it makes no attempt at creativity, and it leaves unaddressed what seems to me to be a very odd and gaping hole or mystery in regard to the way the field conducts itself, such to make the field ripe for abuse by debt collection law firms, but, as I said even about her earlier insulting posts, she's probably correct. She's maybe not the one you'd want at Mission Control when word comes in from Apollo 13 that CO2 levels in the capsule are rising, but her comments are on-point and well-reasoned. Even so, I tend to be more Gene Kranz in my thinking, so I think the question needs to be kept open.

Harry Seaward's scenarios are so disconnected from what I've already explained as background that I see no value-add for this thread in engaging. I don't know who asked about random lawyers randomly suing for random plaintiffs, but randomness isn't a feature of anything I've portrayed. Please get with the program, Harry.

Brotherskeeper's point, about BV80's point, about the credit report, is valid and relevant, except that I've already provided my own valid and relevant response. It's that we already know what a credit report provides, and it's not the same as what I'm trying to accomplish. This thread is meant to explore a more direct approach than that one, by pushing the topic as far as it can go, even if in futility. I consider the distinction important, so I don't want the subject changed.

That distinction is why this thread has value.

I'm not fully convinced that we have yet explored all possible answers to the real question necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Theorist said:

A debt collection law firm claims that Capital One is the plaintiff in a complaint against me. This thread is about how to get from Capital One, and only from Capital One, confirmation that Capital One agrees that it is indeed the plaintiff in the complaint.

What did Cap 1 say when you called and asked?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for asking. What happened when I inquired was hilarious.

I hope to get back to you on that with as much detail as possible, but please give me some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

What did Cap 1 say when you called and asked?

 

My guess is they said "talk to our attorney", since they are represented by counsel in an open lawsuit.

1 hour ago, Theorist said:

'm not fully convinced that we have yet explored all possible answers to the real question necessarily.

Since you are all about the crazy unconventional approaches, you might as well throw in one that has a 5% chance of actually working as opposed to putting all your eggs into the basket with a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance.  So get a 2010 Cap1 card agreement and ask for the case to be moved to arbitration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theorist said:

A debt collection law firm claims that Capital One is the plaintiff in a complaint against me. This thread is about how to get from Capital One, and only from Capital One, confirmation that Capital One agrees that it is indeed the plaintiff in the complaint.

If Captial One is identified as the Plaintiff on the complaint, then Capital One is the Plaintiff as far as the court is concerned. You asked how to obtain documentation during discovery of "the relationship between the original creditor named as plaintiff in a suit and the debt collection law firm claiming to represent them." The retainer agreement between the law firm and Capital One would be one way to find out. An attorney Clydesmom consulted views his attorney retainer agreement as a work product protected by attorney client privilege, unlikely to be waived by a client such Capital One.  I've linked to the rules governing discovery requests. Draft a request for admissions. Follow that with an interrogatory that is based on whether the admission request is admitted or denied. Follow that interrogatory with a request for the production of the document plaintiff relies upon for the admission response or in answer to the interrogatory. I've posted the various rules and laws that you can explore if you find out through discovery that the attorney who signed the complaint and/or the law firm has knowingly misrepresented that Capital One is the proper party in interest. Other useful evidence outside of obtaining through discovery responses "only from Capital One," "confirmation that Capital One agrees that it is indeed the plaintiff in the complaint," would be if Capital One is reporting ownership of the account on your credit reports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Theorist said:

I hope to get back to you on that with as much detail as possible, but please give me some time.

Haa - you got me! I've been TROLLED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brotherskeeper, thank you again for your outstanding responses. I'm grateful for having received your attention and advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Theorist said:

but randomness isn't a feature of anything I've portrayed.

Then who do you 'theorize' is filling the lawsuit paperwork? They either are, or are not, affiliated with cap1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Theorist said:

Thank you for asking. What happened when I inquired was hilarious.

I hope to get back to you on that with as much detail as possible, but please give me some time.

What is also hilarious is your complete inability to answer any direct question or demonstrate that even one of your theories has legs. No more time for you. This thread has outlived its usefulness and is locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.