This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
By David Lee Wells Predatory Debt Collectors Lose and Citizens Win The people of the United States have been

the victims of banks and debt collectors. The major banks have been caught in illegal and im- proper acts of using Robot Signers in foreclo- sure documents and have agreed to pay $17 Billion Dollars to the States Attorney Generals for the infraction of citizen’s rights. What is Robot signing? In many Courts before a fore- closure occurs there must be a document signed, under oath that the facts stated in the documents are true and correct. In mortgage cases the facts were the bank is owed a debt (promissory note), the homeowner has not paid and the bank is entitled to the house be- cause of a mortgage or Deed of Trust. These big banks told a processing clerk (who had no knowledge of these facts) to swear under oath, under penalty of going to jail, sign or lose your job. So these clerks signed tens of thousands of affidavits and homeowners fraudulently lost their houses. So the big banks are paying $17 Billion Dollars to the State Governments for fraud committed on the States and their citizens. The next round is the lawsuits for the individual damages and then there will be the criminal rounds. The signer will be criminally charged for sure, how about their supervisors, the heads of the department, the bank’s vice president or president or board of directors? How high will it go? How much money will State and Federal governments need to prosecute all the wrong doers. Remember sometimes in fact a lot of times we need big government to protect fam- ilies and individual rights in this country. The Missouri Supreme Court struck a blow

for individual rights and against corporate wrongdoing in Cach, LLC v. Askew on January 17, 2012. Do you remember the day you signed for a credit card was 20 years ago or 35 years ago? Did you keep a copy of the credit card application? Do you know what the appli- cation said, the terms of the loan? What your interest rate was? How it could be changed, etc.? Do you have any of copies of these records? So if a credit card company sued you, you would expect them to prove their case. Show me the application, my signature and the

58 Wide Open

charges made on the card and payments made and balance due. Because the Bank’s keep ac- curate records after all they are a Bank. Wrong! This is not credit card cases (collection) are brought today. You or one of your elderly rela- tives get a lawsuit from XYZ Funds that says you owe them $10,000 on a Visa Credit Card issued by Bank of Fair Dealing. You have never heard of XYZ Funds or done business with them. Their position is that you are a dead beat and we are reporting you to the Credit Bureau to ruin your credit so your credit score will go down and you will pay higher interest or can’t get a loan for a car or house, pay up is their demand. The Attorney General of Missouri who re-

ceives consumer merchandizing complaints indicates that collection complaints at the top of all complaints. The Fair Debt Collection Act doesn’t provide much relief to consumers at $1,000 a violation. The Bank of Fair Dealing sold the credit card

account to Company A; who sold the account to Company B, etc until it got to XYZ Funds. Did XYZ Funds receive the original records of the debt, (Best Evidence) “application” with your signature, etc., probably not. They have com- puter records (have you had any problems with your computer lately?) This is hearsay. XYZ’s position in court is we are entitled to put into ev- idence their stack of records of this debt under the “Business Records Act” which is an excep- tion to the hearsay rule. (An individual can’t testify about what someone else told them; there are records of the debt) The Business records to be introduced into evidence there must be an affidavit of a clerk that says “these are the true and accurate records” (Didn’t the Big Banks just get caught with robot signers on mortgages?). Would debt collectors do the same thing? Well, not in Missouri, your lawyer can defeat their claim by making the correct ob- jections at the proper time. Remember the Judge can’t make objections or help you with your case. The first fact that must be established is, does

the debt collector actually own the debt “stand- ing to sue”. Did the debt collector get a com-

puter file of bad debts but never acquire legal title from the prior owner. The Supreme Court ruled the assignments (transfer) of the debt must be proved from the original bank (Bank of Fair Dealing) down the chain of collection to the collector who is suing. Credit card debts held by the Bank of Fair Dealing are bundled with thousands of debts and sold for $.80 on the dol- lar the second holder then tries to collect and then sells them for less until by the time a debt is sued on it may have been bought for $.05 on the dollar. A debtor making even payment on the debt does not prove a valid assignment of the debt. The debt collector’s clerks must be knowl-

edgeable about how the records were kept from the beginning and be properly trained and who has had possession of these records through these companies records deposition. Don’t give up when a debt collector calls or

sues, also don’t let your elderly relations pay on an unknown debt that is 9 years old as one pay- ment can renew the statute of limitations for an- other 10 years. You should review your elderly family member’s accounts and payments as collectors can pray on them and convince them that they owe a debt that they do not owe. Older citizens are embarrassed by receiving a collection letter and can be a victim of a collec- tion scam. Remember if the collector cannot prove the debt it is in effect a fraud and a scam. In the Cach case the original bank was Pro-

vidian then it sold to Washington Mutual Bank and then to World Wide and then to the collec- tion company Cach, LLC. A debt record to be admitted into evidence

under the Business Records Act must pass a foundation test, the witness must be qualified to testify, to identity, mode of operation, made in the ordinary course of business and the entry entered at or near the time of the events. The witness has the burden of establishing the probability of trustworthiness of the record and of the personal knowledge of the events and records good business keeping records by one company does not prove the good keeping of records of another. To prove these things in a

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108