• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

once an alleged debt account is charged-off by a bank, may debt collector sue?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

S

SharingLights

Guest
What is the name of your state? NY.

Good day!

You have a truly valuable forum.
We would like to ask you if it's ok with you:
1) once an alleged debt account is charged-off by a bank, may a third party debt collector sue a person in a Court on that?

2) Sherman Acquisition II has filed a lawsuit adnd provided Affidavits from itself and the LVVN Funding. To our knowledge, both firms are dissolved. It is Resurgent Capital that still stands active.
May the Plaintiff, (Sherman Acquisition II, LLC., who is represented by a law firm, sue a Consumer under the orginally purchased Index# in the Court, while the Principal is dissolved?

Your extra valuable answers would cover many cases pertaining to such.
 
Last edited:


S

SharingLights

Guest
How to transfer a case out of Kings county in NY to New York County in NY?

How to transfer a case out of Kings county in NY to New York County in NY?

Once there is a proof that Court’ file has been tampered with and some of my Motions are either dissappered or are mailed back to me in a Court’s large legal size envelope,(over 50 pages of evidence so that I can’t even appeal what is not in the file) while the Judge refused to look at the evidence that the alleged Contract Agreement of alelged debt does not contain one siganture of either party and can’t be even called a Contract as well as the fact that both: the debt ollector and their atotorney are not licensed debt collectors in NY, (law requires such in NY.)
How can I file a Motion in that corrupt Court to transfer the case from Brooklyn to Manhattan?
More than enough defense exists but all is irrelevant when the above violations take place with Judge’s approval and asssitance. I do not Judicial Comete woul ddo much as only criminal charges apepar, they scream, we have no Jurisdiction over that. Tempreing with Court evidence on file is criminal offence indeed.
I do not beliebe she would recuse herself. Total anarchy and abuse. Out of ten apperances on the case, only in one, supossedly, a court’s report was present. Judges’ words against mine…..
should I say more and their version of law?
Permanent residence is in Brooklyn, temporal is in Manhattan.
 
S

SharingLights

Guest
SharingLights said:
What is the name of your state? NY.

Good day!

You have a truly valuable forum.
We would like to ask you if it's ok with you:

1) once an alleged debt account is charged-off by a bank, may a third party debt collector sue a person in a Court on that?

2) Sherman Acquisition II has filed a lawsuit and provided Affidavits from itself and the LVVN Funding. To our knowledge, both firms are dissolved. It is Resurgent Capital that still stands active.
May the Plaintiff, (Sherman Acquisition II, LLC., who is represented by a law firm, sue a Consumer under the originally purchased Index# in the Court, while the Principal is dissolved?

Your extra valuable answers would cover many cases pertaining to such.

Since no one replied, life has taught me to do my own research and not to rely on lawyers, as I would be waiting for answers to arriveeeeeeee for long time.

Answers:

1) No.
Any 3-party debt collector who sues a Consumer, while Consumer has not made an offer or accepted such with that, particular debt collector is contrary to laws and is illegal even though many judges aid the fraud willingly.

Credit card contract is a continuing series of offers to contract and as such is not transferable.

Credit card contracts are not transferable and that selling a contract extinguishes all rights under the contract unless the Consumer agrees to amend such contract on the terms of the accepting a new party as the holder in due course.

2) Both firms: Sherman Acq... and LVNV... have been dissolved and are not registered with the Secretary of State of SC (the original State) and have not been licensed debt collectors in the State of New York, as well as is not registered business in NY.

Any Judge of any Court in NY who awarded these firms and their attorney any judgment have violated laws, falling under the criminal statues for both: the judges and such attorneys.

The attorneys are to be charged with willfully and knowingly representing a non-existent entity in the US Courts, being involved in the US mail fraud, and embezzlement of funds.

No bona fide error is possible, as all records are, publicly availble to all - not only attorneys
in the case of corporate and license filings.
 

JETX

Senior Member
SharingLights said:
Since no one replied, life has taught me to do my own research and not to rely on lawyers, as I would be waiting for answers to arriveeeeeeee for long time.

Answers:

1) No.
And now for the CORRECT answer.
Yes, the debt OWNER can sue you, at any time after you are in breach of the agreement.

Credit card contract is a continuing series of offers to contract and as such is not transferable.
Wrong again. A credit card is an 'open account'. And it CAN be sold or transferred all day long. Take a look at all the Providian credit card debts that were sold. There is a HUGE secondary debt purchase business!!

Credit card contracts are not transferable and that selling a contract extinguishes all rights under the contract unless the Consumer agrees to amend such contract on the terms of the accepting a new party as the holder in due course.
Wrong!!

2) Both firms: Sherman Acq... and LVNV... have been dissolved and are not registered with the Secretary of State of SC (the original State) and have not been licensed debt collectors in the State of New York, as well as is not registered business in NY.
You are really full of crap, huh!!!

First, there is generally no statutory licensing or bond requirements for conducting collection activities in the State of New York.

Second, a business does not have to be 'registered' in every state... in order to file a lawsuit there.
 
Last edited:
S

SharingLights

Guest
And now for the CORRECT answer.
Yes, the debt OWNER can sue you, at any time after you are in breach of the agreement.



Correct answer?
Are you kidding?
There is no real debt owner after banks sold the evidence of debt.
It is a gambling portfolio.

First of all the debt is not even proved.
How can anyone own what is not proved yet?
Very often banks, themselves, breach the agreement and are involved in predatory lending,
unauthorized fees, penalties, and other violations of consumers' laws.
Only small percentage of consumers defaults in their credit accounts via calculated fraud on their part.

It is an assumption that there is a debt and that it is owed to the 3-party debt collector, which is, usually,
nothing but extortionist.

On top of that, that extortionist purchased an alleged account for pennies on a dollar; yet sues for much higher amount, which is fraud once again.
As even if the firm could prove damages, it could only collect the amount of the actual damages
i.e. the purchase price.

The fraud deepens as paying that extortionist does not discharge debt and a credit report
may show that consumer still owes the bank.
Furthermore, usually another debt collector attempts to collects from the same consumer again, if figure do not match and deals are made with the first extortionist, for example.



Wrong again. A credit card is an 'open account'. And it CAN be sold or transferred all day long. Take a look at all the Providian credit card debts that were sold. There is a HUGE secondary debt purchase business!!

Just because banks and debt collectors violate the law, it does not make that violation legal.
The business is huge you are right on that but the fraud is as huge if not more.

They (banks) are not authorized by consumers to sell the account without the consumer agreeing to changes in the contracts, which is private information by the way, falling under the Privacy Act among others.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties.
One party may not amend the agreement without the approval of the other side.
These are rules of commerce.


Wrong!!



You forget to add the phrase _in your opinion!_
Who told you that your fallacies and opinions are of God or real law?
Do not present them as reality or if do, make sure, it is on the Forum, where not reality but your _laws_ rule.
You have a right to state them as you please but do not mislead consumers who depend on your answers.
That is more than immoral. and unethical.


You are really full of crap, huh!!!

First of all, how dare you talking to anyone like that, you - pitiful excuse of an expert?!

Secondly, see my comment below - crap-expert in self-imposed right to determine such degree.
Ivy League degree is dwarfed by your grandeur in expertise of crapness.
Congratulations, the graduate.



In the absence of acceptance of the counteroffers, there is no contract.

See Normile v. Miller, 313 N.C. 98, 108, 326 S.E.2d 11, 18 (1985) (holding that a counteroffer requires the original offer or to either accept or reject the new offer in order to have a binding contract); see also Metro. Steel Indus., Inc. v. Citnalta Constr. Corp., 302 A.D.2d 233, 233, 754 N.Y.S.2d 278, 279 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003) (holding that no contract existed where one party made an offer, and the other party returned it with changes, and the original offer or never formally accepted the counteroffer).

First, there is generally no statutory licensing or bond requirements for conducting collection activities in the State of New York.


When you mislead, try to do a better job next time.
See the quote below as opposed to your fallacies.



Second, a business does not have to be 'registered' in every state... in order to file a lawsuit there.[/QUOTE]

Now, you manipulate provisions.
You stated half-truth, which is not whole truth. How typical of your kin.
You, maybe, meant non-registered with another state firm but possessing proper corporate filing status
in the original State.

However, I, have, clearly stated that the firms in discussion are dissolved and non-existent, anymore, firms.
Even though you try to defend them, they are still involved in fraud and would be held accountable, as
the same guys run their buffer firms and dissolve them when investigation gets close to them.
Then, they sell the account to a new firm.
Guess which one?

One of the other buffer firms, once again, run by the same guys, often, at the same address.
They are so smart they think, so are their lawyers-liars.

Learn how to read first what others write if have to go back to basics.




Furthermore, any one who writes that another person is full of crap just because he/she has a different opinion is neither wise nor accurate in law matters - not to mention luck of basic manners and a show of arrogance under the veil of supreme knowledge.

On top of that, you submit false information to Consumers.
Are you a debt collector yourself, by any chance, or an attorney working for them?
That is a direct question: please answer, equally, directly.

Back to your version of reality: do you understand yourself what you write or you do that on purpose to mislead consumers according to your agenda?

Once again, the both firms are non-existent.
A non-existent entity neither has a standing in any court nor has any rights - it is non-existent as a deceased person.
Can he/she file any lawsuit?
The person is dead.
If a lawsuit is field, that means someone has committed fraud.


You state fallacies via your lack of knowledge and give examples of fraud of debt collection as if it is a legitimate business and use Providian bank as an example, which faces lawsuits left and right for its extensive violations of banking laws


On top of that do you have any comprehension of economics at all?


Banks _charge off_ the account.
It is entered as a zero in their general ledger.
There is nothing to collects after that.
Zero is zero _ not debit and not credit.

Most of banks file insurance claim and collect insurance for that account as well.
That is another fraud to: to collect insurance and attempt to profit financially further past that act.


Next, wise creature, you may be used to lying but it would not work with me.
I allege you give Consumers inaccurate data publicly:

Proof by _quote_
if can manage after all your fallacies.

My turn to prove:

Proof by quote.




DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY (122)
License Application Checklist
DCA Licensing Center
42 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10004
For more information, call 311
A person or business is a Debt Collection Agency if engaged in business of which the principal purpose is to collect debts owed to another person or entity. Any such business, which attempts to collect debts from consumers located in New York City, must have a Debt Collection Agency license.

May the consumers judge themselves who is full of what after comparing your _truth_ and real laws.
In the State of New York, a debt collector must be licensed.


Next:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 880

§ 880. Receiving the proceeds of extortion




A person who receives, possesses, conceals, or disposes of any money or other property which was obtained from the commission of any offense under this chapter that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both.

From which law firm are you, by the way, - wisdom and truth - itself?
Before you use word - "crap" regarding anyone, get rid of it yourself!
 
Last edited:
S

SharingLights

Guest
Debt collectors who act as mutants subject the Citizens of the USA to shame, legal proceedings where:

(1). Standing to sue in the respective state court is not proved,

(2). Standing to sue as a bona fide holder-in-due-course is notr proved,

(3). Corporate charter authority to make consumer loans is never proved,

(4). Corporate charter authority to sue for damages on consumer loans is not proved,

(5). Damages in fact are not proved, and

(6). Delegation of authority from enterprises to predicate actors is not proved,

among other violations of law.
 
S

SharingLights

Guest
Debt collectors proceed without proof of damages; thus, such judgments are VOID

In support of the point of law that party suing in debt collectioin must prove up their claim or they have no claim and the judgment is void:

Trial court could not award damages to plaintiff, following default judgment, without requiring evidence of damages.
Razorsoft, Inc. v. Maktal, Inc., Okla.App. Div. 1, 907 P.2d 1102 (1995), rehearing denied.

A party is not in default so long as he has a pleading on file which makes an issue in the case that requires proof on the part of the opposite party in order to entitle him to recover. Millikan v. Booth, Okla., 4 Okla. 713, 46 P. 489 (1896).

Proof of or assessment of damages upon petition claiming damages, it is error to pronounce judgment without hearing proof or assessing damages.
Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Lambert, 31 Okla. 300, 121 P. 654, Ann.Cas.1913E, 329 (1912); City of Guthrie v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 5 Okla. 774, 50 P. 84 (1897).

In the assessment of damages following entry of default judgment, a defaulting party has a statutory right to a hearing on the extent of unliquidated damage, and encompassed within this right is the opportunity to a fair post-default inquest at which both the plaintiff and the defendant can participate in the proceedings by cross-examining witnesses and introducing evidence on their own behalf.
Payne v. Dewitt, Okla., 995 P.2d 1088 (1999).

A default declaration, imposed as a discovery sanction against a defendant, cannot extend beyond saddling defendant with liability for the harm occasioned and for imposition of punitive damages, and the trial court must leave to a meaningful inquiry the quantum of actual and punitive damages, without stripping defendant of basic forensic devices to test the truth of plaintiff's evidence.
Payne v. Dewitt, Okla., 995 P.2d 1088 (1999).
 
S

SharingLights

Guest
Loans and debt collectors

1 st proposition: In loan proceedings, promissory notes are a type and form of money known as “M3.”

2 nd proposition: In loan proceedings, lending institutions can only lend “M1.”

3 rd proposition: In loan proceedings, where lending institutions treat unliquidated assets or M3 as M1, the lending institution is said to have hypothecated the loan, or in other words, the lending institution treating M3 as M1 has placed nothing at risk and therefore cannot have damages in fact for failure to pay the loan which was hypothecated.

4 th proposition: Lending institution which has hypothecated a loan has violated truth in lending laws as well as committed fraud.
 

K'Ta

Member
Keep talking. I'm sure you'll eventually convince yourself you're right and JETX, a lawyer, is wrong.

Let us know how that works for you in court when you get sued.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
JET - https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=317843, that says it all. (And here I thought she was just crazy! Who knew she was actually a crazy deadbeat?)

And while NYC actually does have pretty stringent licensing requirements for, inter alia, debt collectors, (Title 20 of the NYC Administrative Code), in practice, an unknowing violation is usually a $50 fine, which is not exactly a huge deterrant. Even a repeated, knowing violation is only a $500 fine. (I don't have the cite in front of me, but if memory serves, it's 20-703).

I'll leave it up to someone else to explain the "usefulness" of the cases cited above...
 
S

SharingLights

Guest
Wake up and smell coffee, tea, or juice.

K'Ta said:
Keep talking. I'm sure you'll eventually convince yourself you're right and JETX, a lawyer, is wrong.

Let us know how that works for you in court when you get sued.
1) I do not need your permission to talk or write, as only in your sweetest dreams, SuiJuris is under your control and authority.

2) You are "sure..."
In order to be sure, one must posses sound logic, which is a pre-requisite to the former.
In your case, based on your reply, you proved that
you may not be "sure!"

3) You may not speak on my behalf what I try to convince myself or not, as, only I know that, unless
you run psychic connection through mother Cleo
or one of your fellows.

4) Your statement, which yields a conclusion that only lawyers are right and non-lawyers are wrong is based on fallacy and absurdness.
That is self evident!
That is called - being "educated out of common sense!"

Logical proof to 4)

When two opposing lawyers litigate a case in Court, obviously one of them looses.
Therefore, the conclusion is that, at any given time,
50% of lawyers loose.
Furthermore, with time, even the wining party may loose another case.
That means that, from time to time, most lawyers loose a case and are considered to be "wrong" in that regard.

Next:

5) Fact: Judges are lawyers.
Most judges loose appeals from time to time.
That proves, them being "wrong."

Based on the above facts a statement of yours, by the
reversed negation that a non-layer is wrong and a lawyer is right is a fallacy and absurdness that a child can see but you failed to grasp.

So much for you logical abilities and coherence.


Next:

6) Throughout the history, most of the impact and discoveries - scientific and artistic work, and largely social results has been done by People comprising their societies - yes, real People.

Lawyers' and judges' input concerning the above has been, overall, no more than 1-2%!

That is reality of life and not your wishful thinking.


Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohamed, Einstein, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Homer, Hermes Trismegistus, Tesla,
and millions of others, etc. were ALL non-lawyers - period!

98-99% were the People for the People - not l-a-w-y-e-r-s.
Argue with that if like - good luck!

7) Do you work or have worked for a debt collector attorney?


What you stated in your profile is so expressive of you:
Location:
Outside your window looking in

Furthermore, via my post: Court cases and laws quoted remained unrebutted by you, so your opposition has defaulted by substance.

So much for your lagniappes of wisdom, law, and reality of life!

You, just publicly embarrassed yourself before the Consumers who read the post.
Some lawyers may applaud you - decent ones... I doubt.

I must, also, mention that rudeness, and lack of basic manners coming through your wise post is self-evident.There was nothing besides spite and desire to ridicule any non-lawyer.

I can state that you have engaged the wrong party to spread your toxins on.

Guess what?
I stood up to you and those you represent who may believe in the same arrogance.
In the process, I believe, it has been done based on truth, logic, and history.
Real people would discern for themselves.
As for "unreal" ones - they have their path in life and equal rights.

I thank you for exposing the essence of your kind, as people need to experience both sides under the Free Will.
Amen!

SuiJuris
 
Last edited:
S

SharingLights

Guest
They, just, cannot stand Sovereign mind!

You Are Guilty said:
JET - https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=317843, that says it all. (And here I thought she was just crazy! Who knew she was actually a crazy deadbeat?)

And while NYC actually does have pretty stringent licensing requirements for, inter alia, debt collectors, (Title 20 of the NYC Administrative Code), in practice, an unknowing violation is usually a $50 fine, which is not exactly a huge deterrant. Even a repeated, knowing violation is only a $500 fine. (I don't have the cite in front of me, but if memory serves, it's 20-703).

I'll leave it up to someone else to explain the "usefulness" of the cases cited above...
Coward and liar is back.

JET - https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=317843, that says it all. (And here I thought she was just crazy! Who knew she was actually a crazy deadbeat?)

All right:
let's expose this one and his pearls of wisdom,
so Consumers would learn to, finally, go out and vote, as when they don't - creatures like this one and his friends
attempt to rule the country.
Guess where?

If not sure, experience how much justice you can get in Courts nowadays:
corrupted, immoral, greedy creatures laughing at the Citizens and robing them with a weapon of the "manipulated and violated laws,", just like some products try to do here.

Now the facts:

This product of the Bar put up a link to my post.
Thank you - product.

Then, he made two statements based on that:

1) I am crazy.
2) I am deadbeat.


I quote accurately and honestly and only.
I am not one of these liars.
I was raised to follow the Ten Commandments.

Based on 1) & 2), all can see how these creatures waste their education and why they study law in reality?
I believe all can get a clear picture.
Just read him and follow his low tactics.
Disgusting and only.

So what is at that post-link that makes me crazy?

I would quote:



Once there is a proof that Court's file has been tampered with and some of my Motions are,
either disappeared, and some are mailed back to me...


1) "you are guilty" - you are a liar and yes - you are guilty.
2) you called a person crazy because your ego can't take defeat.
3) My post proves that an opposing attorney and the friendly to her judge could not win by honest means and resorted to stealing documents from the Court's file.


4) That means they are criminals - not that I am or any one else is "crazy."
Your arguments are even below kindergarten level, as a kid can comprehend more.

5) Obviously, my defense was solid, as why steal my defense if that could, only, prove
the opposing party, being right and a winner?

6) You called me "deadbeat" without any evidence at all.
That means, if you are an attorney, you are a JOKE of an attorney.
Real attorney proceed by evidence.
You have none.

If I am wrong, post it here.
Prove your point by evidence or prove, by default, being a liar!

If you default, you, also, would prove, that you have engaged in Defamation of Character willfully and arbitrarily.
The First Ammendment is not aplicable here when you used such grounds as you did.
You accused me of being "crazy and a deadbeat" - that demands solid proof.
We are, all, waiting.

I would deal with that to the full extend of the law as you supposedly love law and its usage
so that you learn how to follow the same laws and not, only, abuse them.

You presented to all your assumptions as facts.

A fact of being sued is not a fact of being guilty of anything - that is a Maxim.
Didn't you study that in your school?


On top of it, I offered you to face me in Court and you became mute suddenly.
I would like to believe that not all attorney are like you and on your level of dirty tactics
.


And while NYC actually does have pretty stringent licensing requirements for, inter alia, debt collectors, (Title 20 of the NYC Administrative Code), in practice, an unknowing violation is usually a $50 fine, which is not exactly a huge deterrant. Even a repeated, knowing violation is only a $500 fine. (I don't have the cite in front of me, but if memory serves, it's 20-703).

I'll leave it up to someone else to explain the "usefulness" of the cases cited above...

I will explain, if you are not able or do not wish Consumers to know the truth:

a debt collector which is not licensed,
regardless of other factors, has no standing in Court.
Consequntly, any judgment in its favor is a VOID.
 
Last edited:

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
SharingLights said:
Coward and liar is back. . . Consequntly, any judgment in its favor is a VOID.
Perhaps (and that's a big "if", given the number of exemptions to the rule). But then all they have to do is pay the $150 filing fee and get their license and get a new judgment. Which means, in the end, you're still a crazy deadbeat loser. :D
 
S

SharingLights

Guest
A liar is a liar as what else is left for liars?

You Are Guilty said:
Perhaps (and that's a big "if", given the number of exemptions to the rule). But then all they have to do is pay the $150 filing fee and get their license and get a new judgment. Which means, in the end, you're still a crazy deadbeat loser. :D

Submit one, legitimate proof I owe what you claim as you stated I am a deadbeat!
If you default, you are a liar on the record.

Mutants like you always assume, as you mutate from norm and decency.

Then, they present that fallacy as court acceptable proof.

You only win if win when have judges of your kin.

We are all waiting for the proof of your statement, meanwhile.

Where is it?


On top of it you have no clue of real law.
A plaintiff must prove damages in order to collect.

Third party collectors have no damages;
they are engaged in racket and extortion.
They get hold of worthless paper in the form of banks' charge offs sold at "their markets."
I told you before, learn the basic of economics first.
It seems you really have no clue: confused yourself and confuse others.

Are you a lawyer for a fact or not?
If yes, what is your specialty?
I ask sincerely.
 
S

SharingLights

Guest
Why do you think many collectors do not have license or can't post a bond where it is required?

Are they that naive or ignorant?
They have their lawyers and liars working for them.
So why?

Because they have violated so many laws and have so many legitimate complaints on file
with the FTC, BBB, DCA, etc that no one would issue them license.

If these mutants of collection racket are involved in law abiding activities, then why are so many of them being closed down, penalized heavily at times, and investigated?


In reality, they break more laws than are reported, as most Consumers have no knowledge of law and their rights.


The mutant of collection industry, often open about ten buffer firms, all owed by the same criminals and/or joint ventures with their kin.

When investigations catches up, they "sell" the alleged account to another firm i.e. to themselves and keep pointing fingers at each other.

It's a cheap game.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top