Failure to understand application of fact to law.

This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a debt collector's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.

Ole Normie misses the boat yet once again and makes yet another false accusation against me.

In his latest bfog article he says that it is not a violation to present only a signed contract as validation of the debt. His ignorance is incredible indeed. It is a violation for the simple reason that FDCPA states that it is a violation of the law to present any false or misleading information. There are also many other ways in which the presentation of only a signed contract is a violation. He is obviously now reduced to picking nits and grasping straws. In the process he also starts giving legal opinions on his own thereby quite possibly introducing the unauthorized practice of law issue to his blog.




The FDCPA does not define what constitues a valid debt, and for good reason. A valid debt is a question for a trier of fact to determine, and it relates to state law, not the FDCPA.

The sole purpose of the FDCPA is to control the behavior of a collection agency, not to settle contracts.

What constitutes a valid debt in court would necessarily qualify as proper verification. An actionable violation under 15 USC 1692g can therefore only be determined if the court deems the signed contract to represent an invalid debt. A cause of action cannot occur from the mere offering of a signed contract as verification.

CREDITWRENCH stating that a collector sending a signed contract as validation is a FDCPA violation is false and misleading.