| 12/14/2021 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Auto debt
|
- Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
- Threatened to turn you in to immigration or deport you
|
|
Web |
|
|
Prior CFPB Complaint : # XXXX Debtor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Creditor : XXXX XXXX, a living, natural XXXX, and Secured Party/Creditor-XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX There are no judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do no enforce statutes and codes. Executive Administrators enforce statutes and codes.
( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX US 428, 1 STAT. 138-178 In XXXX XXXX XXXX , the Supreme Court expanded the FDCPAs application from only debt collectors to include lawyers who regularly engage in debt collection. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX have side-stepped regulations imposed by the FDCPA by having their attorneys Butler, Rowse, Oberele PLC act in their stead. [ XXXX XXXX, The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act After XXXX XXXX XXXX : A Practical Examination of the End of the Exemption, 46 EMORY L.J. 389, 390 XXXX XXXX ). Congress originally passed the FDCPA with an exemption for attorneys operating as or for debt collectors. Id.
However in XXXX Congress repealed that exemption, theoretically bringing [ attorneys ] within the purview of the Act. Id. at 391 ]. In response, the Supreme Court decided to definitively extend the application of the FDCPA to include both debt collectors and attorneys representing or acting as debt collectors. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Providing consumers with a cause of action under Section 1692e for misrepresentations made to a court promotes these interests by enabling consumers to protect their own rights without having to depend on external remedies such as enforcement by the CFPB or court sanctions. Under the FDCPA, the term debt collector refers to any person who regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed to another or who uses a different name when collecting his own debts.
The FDCPA states that Consumers deserve to be treated with care and respect and should not be taken advantage of through unfair debt collection practices such as harassment, embarrassment, or misrepresentation. The purpose of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by many debt collectors in light of abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. [ 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( XXXX ). ] The FDCPA was enacted in order to allow consumers to enforce violations of the Act instead of having to rely on a [ Government and/or Agency ] to intervene on the consumers behalf. [ 15 U.S.C. 1692k ].
Congress decided to provide individual citizens with a private cause of action to protect their own rights against unfair debt collection practices. [ 15 U.S.C. 1692k ]. One goal was to protect consumers by preventing debt collectors from abusing the attorney exception by using hired attorneys to commit FDCPA violations on the debt collectors behalf. To better protect Consumers, Section 1692e give Consumers a private cause of action against debt collectors for misstatements made in pleadings and other documents submitted to a court of law.
The FDCPA covers Attorneys who also regularly engage in debt collection because of their important role in the collection of a debt, [ XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291, 299 XXXX XXXX XXXX ], then Section 1692e also apply when a misrepresentation is made to a party who plays a significant role in the collection of a debt. Section 1692e states that [ a ] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.. Congress enacted the FDCPA with the expectation that consumers, as very interested parties, would privately enforce violations of the FDCPA. [ S. REP. NO. 95-382, at 5 ( XXXX ), reprinted in XXXX U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. ] While the CFPB is permitted to take regulatory action, [ p5 U.S.C. 1692l, amended by Dodd-Frank Act 1089, 124 Stat. at 2092 ( codified at various subsections of 15 U.S.C. 1692l ) ] In XXXX, the Supreme Court extended the application of the FDCPA to include attorneys who regularly represent debt collectors or who themselves regularly engage in debt collection practices. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291, 299 ( XXXX ) ].
Accordingly, attorneys who regularly try to collect consumer debts, usually on behalf of a debt collector, are also subject to the FDCPA as debt collectors. [ ( noting that even litigating... seems simply one way of collecting a debt ). Thus, the FDCPA and Section 1692e make both debt collectors and their attorneys potentially liable for violations. FDCPA and Section 1692e make both debt collectors and their attorneys liable for violations. The Sixth Circuit in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX interpreted any false representation or deceptive means to collect... any debt 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ) ( XXXX ) to encompass misleading acts directed at a court because statements made by the attorney for a debt collector also fall within the scope of the FDCPA. [ See XXXX, 514 U.S. at 294 ]. In order to fulfill the purpose of the FDCPA to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses, it is necessary to resolve this dispute. 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( XXXX ).
The Ninth Circuit applied a higher standard of review when attorneys are involved because an attorney stands a significantly lower chance of being bullied or taken advantage of as compared to his client. Consumer believes that the conversation is no longer between the debt collector and Consumer, but a third party, the JUDGE has also been introduced to the conversation as a finder of fact. Because both the Consumer and the judge play vital roles in the resolution of a debt collection suit, a misrepresentation to either party may significantly affect the outcome of that suit. If debt collector makes a misrepresentation to recover a debt, it should not matter whether the debtor, his attorney, or the presiding judge is deceived so long as that deception results in an improper recovery at the Consumers expense. A misstatement can be made inside or outside of the courtroom. In the case of third-party debt collection, either type of deception has the potential to harm Consumers by misleading either the Consumer or the judge.
The goal of passing the FDCPA was that private civil suits by Consumers would make it a primarily self-enforcing piece of legislation. [ S. REP. NO. 95-382, at 5 ]. Therefore, it is essential that consumers be permitted to enforce this right and not have to wait on a third party to champion their cause. [ XXXX XXXX, Controlling Fraud Against the Government : The Need for Decentralized Enforcement, 58 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 995, 1014 ( XXXX ) ]. Narrowly interpreting Section 1692e would cut off a Consumers remedy in cases such as XXXX where a misrepresentation has been made in court. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 635 F.3d 938, 939 ( 7th Cir. XXXX ). ] Instead, the consumer would be forced to depend on the court to use its discretion under Rule 11 [ The usage of the word may in Rule 11 ( c ) gives judges discretionary power to impose sanctions. FED. R. CIV. P. 11 ( c ) ] ( or the respective states equivalent to Rule 11 ) to deal with any misrepresentations made by a debt collector. [ Rule 11 ( b ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states the following : ( b ) Representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paperwhether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating itan Attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances : ( 1 ) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation [ and ]... ( 3 ) the factual contentions have evidentiary support.... ] Second, limiting the scope of Section 1692e will also counter the spirit of the Supreme Courts decision in XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide further protections to Consumers from debt collectors who would use their attorneys as hired guns to avoid liability under Section 1692e. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291, 298 ( XXXX ) ].
A narrow interpretation of Section 1692e would take this private cause of action away from Consumers, effectively undermining the FDCPAs purpose of protecting consumers by eliminating abusive and deceptive debt collection practices. [ The first section of the FDCPA states that [ t ] here is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors, and in response, the FDCPA was enacted to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors because the [ e ] xisting laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( 2006 ) ].
The debt collector has not : 1. Validation of the debt ( the actual accounting ).
2. Verification of your claim against me a four and a half a day or a hand sign invoice in accordance with the bill of exchange in 1882 uniform commercial codes federal fair credit reporting act in Michigan Civil Code for lawful purposes.
3. A copy of the contract signed by both partied and therefore binding both parties.
4. Please also provide me with a true and certified copy not a photocopy of the original note credit agreement under penalty of perjury and the unlimited liability and confirm that this note has never been sold.
5. Please also confirm major who is duly authorized representative from your company who has carried out due diligence under the money laundering regulations XXXX and what action she has taken in relation to this account.
6. Please delete account from 3 Credit Bureaus of documentation is not sent!
By using its regulatory powers to define Section 1692e, [ Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 1022 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ), 124 Stat. 1376, 1981 ( 2010 ) ( codified at 12 U.S.C. 5512 ) ], by gathering more accurate data on specific types of debt collector abuses, [ Detweiler, supra note 200 ], and by requiring a more stringent document transfer process when selling debt, [ THE PATH FORWARD, supra note 195, at 1718. ], the CFPB could also effectively address the increasing problem of deceptive debt collection practices. [ Between XXXX and XXXX, there has been a steady increase in the number of complaints, related to misrepresentations by third-party debt collectors, received by the FTC that have been categorized as [ d ] emanding larger payment than permitted and [ t ] hreatening dire consequences if consumer fails to pay. See ANNUAL REPORT XXXX, supra note 1, at 7 ]. The FDCPA is a body of law meant to be enforced by Consumers should not apply to all aspects of debt collection. Section 1692e will be interpreted by the Supreme Court and the CFPB in a way that extends its protective scope into the courtroom. [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. , 516 F.3d 85, 91 ( 2d Cir. XXXXXXXX ) ( stating that the FDCPA grants a PRIVATE RIGHT [ 15 USC 1692a ] of action to a Consumer who receives a communication that violates the Act ).
|
| 10/21/2021 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Auto debt
|
- Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
- Seized or attempted to seize your property
|
|
Web |
|
|
To start this Company continues to ignore Consumer is Original Creditor.
Company continues to use abusive practices under 15 USC 1692a.
Company continues to ignore Cease & Desist under 15 USC 1692b Company violated 15 USC 1692c Company violated 15 USC 1692d Company violated 15 USC 1692f Company failed to validate debt under 15 USC 1692g On XX/XX/XXXX Butler, Rowse-Oblerle PLLC sent someone to XXXX XXXX XXXX threatening a subpoena on XX/XX/XXXX in which Consumer WILL NOT BE attending.
Company continues to ignore debt was XXXX per Department of Treasury and is using legal actions under 15 USC 1692i, furnishing certain deceptive form under 15 USC 1692j and civil liability under 1692k.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Consumer filed Chpt XXXX Bankruptcy on or about XX/XX/XXXX. After informing XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that Consumer filed a Chpt XXXX, XXXX XXXX immediately XXXX the loan. Bankruptcy Judge XXXX states on record that due to timeframes of Consumer last Chpt XXXX Bankruptcy [ case No # : XXXX ] new filing [ Case # : XXXX ] would be put on hold and extended to XX/XX/XXXX in order to get a discharge for Consumer presumption that all debts would be forgiven or discharged. Consumer decided to convert Chpt XXXX to Chpt XXXX by submitting a motion in which no one objected. Consumer had never converted so all rights to do was granted and realized after filing a Chapter XXXX case that Chapter XXXX offers a better choice in Consumers circumstances and would have benefited from voluntarily converting the bankruptcy. Consumer passed means test and submitted but was denied stating deficient which gave XXXX XXXX power to steal the vehicle from Consumer. Consumer was honest and had no fraud like conduct, false pretenses, false representations or actual fraud. Consumer had no bad faith conduct or repeated persistent violations to warrant contempt.
On or About XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, AFFIDAVIT AND DECLARATION OF NEGATIVE AVERMENT and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PRIVATE ADMISTRATIVE PROCESS AKA ; CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE FOR PROOF OF CLAIM ( CAFV ) with NOTICE OF ADMISTRATIVE REMEDY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. Non-negotiable Private between the parties AND SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE NOTICE and CAVEAT, NOTICE OF FEES SCHEDULES, FINAL TRUE BILL AND ACCOUNTING, INVOICE ALL PARTIED FAILED TO SUBMITTED OATH OF OFFICES, SURETY, PERFORMANCE BONDS, BLANKET ONDS, BOND NUMBERS, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PLEDGES ETC.
ALL COMPANY FAILED TO RESPOND AND IS CURRENTLY IN DEFAULT AFTER BEING PUT ON NOTICE.
On XX/XX/XXXX, Consumer sent XXXX XXXX, Authorized Agent for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Successor to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as well as BUTLER ROWSE-OBERLE PLLC XXXX XXXX XXXX BANKRUPTCY JUDGE XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX CLERK XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX BANRUTPCY TRUSTEE XXXX XXXX XXXX A CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE ( CAFV ) PRIVATE INDEPENDENT ADMISTRATIVE PROCESS along with Proof of Claims, CAVEAT, NOTICE : ARTICLE VI U.S. CONSTITUTION , Certificate of Mailing under 37 CFR 1.8. with no response.
On XX/XX/XXXX a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure and Contest Acceptance was sent with no response.
On XX/XX/XXXX, a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND RES JUDICATA was sent with no response. An invoice fee and notice of fee schedule and Final True Bill of Accounting was also sent with Copyright, trademark, trade name violation : 1. Usage of XXXX, XXXX or XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX including all derivatives, spellings, and upper-case lower-case combinations and renderings of the trademark and trade name without express written consent {>= $1,000,000} Acceptance of Presentments ( without contract ) 2. Unauthorized Citations {$10000.00} 3. Warnings Issued on Paper {$10000.00} 4. XXXX XXXX {$10000.00} 5. Trespassing {$25000.00} 6. Summons, Court Notices ( without contract ) {$10000.00} 7. All other related items, fees, or offers {$10000.00} 8. Punitive Damages {$10000.00} Depositions, Interrogation ( unsolicited ) 9. Name {$10000.00} 10. Drivers License Number {$10000.00} 11. Social Security Number {$50000.00} Obstruction of Travel, Property Search, Trespass, Theft, Carjacking, Interference with Commerce 12. Taking/Theft/Deprivation of Property {$10000.00} per day ( as of XX/XX/XXXX ) Signature, Endorsement, Autograph ( SEA ) 13. Autograph under threat, duress, or coercion {>= $1,000,000} Company is in violation of many FCRA violations and continues to report incorrect and outdated information.
That appointed Attorneys, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of Butler Rowse-Oberele PLLC both represented and defended XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in their 'private capacity ' with nexus to Common Law Unalienable Rights as Associated to the Original Jurisdiction.
All parties committed COLLUSION, CONSIRACY AND FRAUD IN RESPECT FOR THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER in order for Bankruptcy case to be dismissed in order for vehicle to be taken. Consumer was not granted a Chpt XXXX stating deficient filing. Chpt & Chpt XXXX were both accepted under 11 USC 1126. All partied fail to address proof of claim stating they colluded intentionally to destroy Consumer life. All parties are aware that colluding parties may also be held liable for cost, attorney fees or expenses and if willful disregard of this subsection is found PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
All partied DID NOT RESPOND to Proof of Claims that Consumer Bankruptcy case was unreasonably left open for 7 months in order for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to take vehicle.
Bankruptcy Judge XXXX committed " No Fair Ground of Doubt ''.
Consumer submitted PROOF OF CLAIMS TO ALL PARTIES AND ALL PARTIED FAILED TO SUBMIT PROOF OF CLAIMS : Around XX/XX/XXXX, Consumer decided to switch to Chpt XXXX in order to keep the vehicle in question..
On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Consumer submitted to IRS Form XXXX and XXXX, Special Power of Attorney, Letter of Advice, Car Discharge Letter, Odometer Disclosure Statement, Power of Attorney, Bonded Bill of Exchange Order Motor Vehicle and Copy of Authenticated Birth Certificate was sent to the US DEPT OF TREASURY.
On XX/XX/XXXX, Consumer filed an UCC1 indicating the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ] WITH ATTACHED 35 INCH XXXX TIRES as collateral.
As of XX/XX/XXXX per Michigan Department of State Record Lookup the vehicle owner is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mi XXXX [ XXXX : XXXX ] secured by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MI XXXX { Plate # : XXXX } On or around XX/XX/XXXX, Company sent summons from the XXXX District Court in XXXX Michigan . Consumer answered Summons cancelling any contract, agreement and/or citations under the 72 hour rule correction and/or nunc pro tunc ''. Company NEVER REBUTTED. [ currently waiting for copy from court ]
|
| 02/04/2017 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- I do not know
|
- Taking/threatening an illegal action
- Sued w/o proper notification of suit
|
|
Web |
|
|
Butler, Butler, & Rowse-Oberle PLLC filed suit against me without my knowledge. This firm is a debt collector attempting to collect on a debt to which they have no claim. They have no first hand knowledge and therefore can not be granted relief.
The Fair Debt Collecting Practices Act 805 ( a ) states, " Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. '' A correspondence dated XX/XX/2016 was received from Butler, Butler, & Rowse-Oberle PLLC, stating that they were retained to collect a debt and that I had the right to dispute the validity of the debt, which I did, because I have never conducted any business with Butler, Butler, & Rowse-Oberle PLLC. A Cease and Desist was also issued with the notice of dispute.
According to the Fair Debt Collecting Practices Act ( 812 ), a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. " It is no awful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not participating. '' In reply to my disputing of the validity of the alleged debt, a correspondent dated XX/XX/2016 was received, where Butler, Butler, & Rowse-Oberle PLLC failed to provide sufficient proof of their claim to the debt. XXXX also sent copies of copies of agreements between XXXX and myself with intent to use as proof that her firm has claim to the debt.
In addition, the Fair Debt Collecting Practices Act 811 states, " any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall in the case of action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumer 's obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such real property is located. '' XXXX of Butler, Butler, & Rowse-Oberle PLLC does not have a contract or interest in real property with me and therefore can not bring a claim on behalf of another party.
|
| 10/28/2021 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Auto debt
|
- False statements or representation
- Attempted to collect wrong amount
|
|
Web |
|
|
Hello, XXXX XXXX office is handling a garnishment against me from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The total garnishment according to the court documents was to be {$7100.00} ( {$4700.00} for my truck & {$1900.00} for my Visa credit card + misc. fees ).
Midway through my garnishment, my vehicle was repossessed, and I paid XXXX XXXX XXXX {$2000.00} cash in XXXX towards the balance in order to get my vehicle back. There was a {$600.00} fee added which would make a total of {$7700.00} ( XXXX + XXXX ). To date your office has garnished {$8000.00} from my payroll, plus the {$2000.00} cash paid direct to XXXX is a total of {$10000.00} that I have paid as of today, which is approximately {$2300.00} more than the court document stated.
Over the last 3 weeks, I have tried to resolve with XXXX XXXX & the Loan department XXXX. I called XXXX, they keep referring me to the attorney. The firm sent a letter last week of what they have deducted so far, and what was " still owed '' but never addressed the {$2000.00} cash that I paid direct to the credit union.
Can you please assist in a final resolution?
I have all supporting documentation if required.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MI XXXX Phone : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX, MI XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX
|
| 01/18/2024 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Auto debt
|
- Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
- Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
|
|
Web |
|
|
|
| 12/14/2023 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Auto debt
|
- Written notification about debt
- Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
|
|
Web |
|
|
|
| 10/05/2023 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Other debt
|
- Written notification about debt
- Didn't receive notice of right to dispute
|
|
Web |
|
|
|
| 06/02/2023 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Auto debt
|
- Written notification about debt
- Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
|
|
Web |
|
|
|
| 06/08/2022 |
Yes |
- Debt collection
- Credit card debt
|
- Attempts to collect debt not owed
- Debt is not yours
|
|
Web |
|
|
|