Failure to understand due process of 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.

In the following commentary "Normie" complains that my statement that the debt collector has only 30 days in which to validate the debt and that there is actually no limit during which time the debt collector must validate the debt and that the debt collector would not violate the law even if he took 20 years to get the job done is patently ludicrous for the simple reason that if he took anywhere near 20 years the debt would be long past the statutes of limitations in most states.

While there is in truth no stated length of time in which the debt collector must comply with a debtor's demand to validate the debt under FDCPA other statutes indicate otherwise. If a debt collector does not validate and does not continue collection he must also not violate the consumers right to due process of law. If the length of time were never then the consumer could be under the gun so to speak for an extremely long and excessive period of time and that would violate his due process rights.

If a debt collector were allowed to take an excessive length of time before either validating the debt or deciding when to terminate his efforts to collect then he would obviously be guilty of denial of the debtor's right to due proces of law and to avail himself of his right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof.

While there is no specified time within which the debt collector must provide the demanded validation of the debt Normie's complaint must also be viewed by other standards. One of those standards would most likely include whether or not the average average debtor would actually attempt to file a lawsuit against a debt collector for that reason and the answer to that has to lie in the fact that by far most debtors would not pursue legal action against a debt collector in the first place even if they had a number of violations to complain about.

So yet once again, in making his accusations he picks on technicalities to complain about rather than basing them on any practical aspects. That simply goes to help prove that he is simply making his accusations for the sole purpose of annoyance and defamation and is therefore in violation of Oklahoma State Statutes, specifically the Oklahoma State Computer Crimes Act.

Below is his latest rant.

When must a 3rd party collector respond to a request for validation

According to the CREDITWRENCH web site, under the FDCPA they must respond in a reasonable amount of time. The site goes on to further say that the courts have held that this reasonable amount of time is 30 days, and that if they don't do so they are in violation of the law.

Recently I asked CREDITWRENCH CEO Billie Bauer to cite where the FDCPA required validation from a debt collector in a "reasonable amount of time". And, to cite one court case that upheld this.

He couldn't.

The reason he couldn't is that there is no such requirement in the FDCPA, nor is there any supporting case law.

Quoting relevent statute 15 USC 1692g(b):
"If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing.....that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed......the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt ." (Full text here)

The FDCPA does not impose a requirement that a 3rd party collector ever respond to a request for verification. The only thing the FDCPA requires is that they cease collection activity until they do provide it if it was requested of them.

They can supply the verification in a week, a month, 20 years, or never. They just have to stop collection efforts until such time as they do provide it.

The CREDITWRENCH statement that they must provide validation in a reasonable amount of time is false and misleading.



posted by Uncle Normie at 11:38 PM

FDCPA and State Consumer Protection laws.

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.

Uncle Normie's newest debacle of the day.

In what states are original creditors subject to the FDCPA?

The answer to that is none of them. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), is a federal law and its writers exempted original creditors from its regulation.

So what about states that have their own version of the FDCPA?

Many do. However, federal law is the supreme law of the land and trumps state law whenever there is a conflict. This is clearly spelled out in the the supremecy clause of the constitution (Article VI).

That does not, however, preclude a state from creating laws that supplement, or afford greater protection to the public in its own constitution or statutes. The constituional term for this is "concurrent powers".

States that have enacted consumer protection laws similar to the FDCPA have excersised their concurrent powers, however they cannot conflict with federal law. If you read the conusmer protection laws of any of the 50 states (including the 23 advertised on CREDITWRENCH), none of them apply the FDCPA to original creditors. Though some will apply certain collection procedures to original creditors, absolutely none of them apply the entire FDCPA

What "uncle Normie" fails to understand is that while FDCPA specifically exempts original creditors from FDCPA for the most part, many other states laws such aa the Wisconsin law he thinks he understands do not exempt original creditors from state consumer protection laws. For example, Wisconsin state law has one single exception in their statute which specifically exempts those who print forms for debt collectors. Had the Wisconsin legislature intended that original creditors be exempted from state law they would have put that exemption in the law.

By specifically failing to give original creditors exemption under state law the legislature thereby included them as being liable under Wisconsin State law.

Therefore Enormis is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be falsely libeling my good name and business practices and teachings. He is a nutcase whose so called advice is dangerous to anyone who heeds it. His ignorant rantings follow:

As an example, Wisconsin is one of the states listed by CREDITWRENCH as applying the FDCPA to original creditors. I chose Wisconsin because it's debt collection laws are fairly straight forward and brief. I will reference it here and ask that you read it in its entirety. I defy you to find anywhere in Wisconsin statute that indicates the FDCPA applies to original creditors.

CREDITWRENCH indicating that 23 states apply the FDCPA to original creditors is false and misleading information.

And those of "Uncle Normie" are not only false but libelous as well and he can be held liable under libel and defamation laws.

Have fun as a guest of the Oklahoma State Justice system, Normie. And here is the law which may put you behind bars for a few years.

Taken from the Oklahoma State statutes.

SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1953, is amended to read as follows:

Section 1953. A. It shall be unlawful to:

8. Willfully use a computer, computer system, or computer network to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; and